Comments by Richard D. Lewis

Showing 1555 of 1558 comments. Show all.

  • Beata

    You are a courageous woman who is, not only fighting against the enormous power of psychiatry (and Big Pharma) and their oppressive medical model, but also against the power of a state government apparatus that derives benefits from people believing in “genetic theories of original sin” and (in great numbers) numbing themselves against society’s daily traumas.

    On a world scale, the fight against against the medical model is INSEPARABLE from the fight against the inherent inequities in a profit based capitalist system that puts the profits and power of the bourgeois elites above the interests of the masses.

    Poland is just a more extreme example of authoritarianism in the world running amuck. In America the ruling classes are currently able to bury the truth about the medical model within a vast “market place of ideas,” and a competing media that is quite capable of passing on a narrative of multiple conspiracy theories that are believed by millions.

    Science, and the truth about how the world actually works in our daily lives, is under attack on many fronts. To all those people who want to compartmentalize the fight against psychiatry and the medical model, and separate it from all the other social justice battles in the world, PLEASE WAKE UP!

    The battle over the science of climate change, Covid 19 (masks and vaccines etc.), women’s right to control their own bodies, and racial theories of inferiority etc. can not (and should not) be separated from our need to expose the myth of the “chemical imbalance theory” and psychiatry’s promulgation of so-called psychiatric diseases and all their toxic drugs that allegedly “treat’ them.

    Beata Pawlikowska is “fighting the Good Fight” and needs all of our support.

    “Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • James

    Unfortunately, you have fallen into Healy’s “oh so charming” trap of pragmatic rationalizations for justifying oppression. And then you start repeating them back to me.

    Did you somehow miss his OPENING paragraph (in the quote repeated below) where he arrogantly ridicules our entire movement against the medical model as some kind of “romantic” notion. AND he is completely UPHOLDING AND DEFENDING the “disease” model of so-called “mental illness.”

    “…The call to ban ECT is linked to ideas that mental illness doesn’t exist – and indeed that disease doesn’t exist given the benefits ECT can produce in NMS and Parkinson’s disease. There is a romance to the idea that disease doesn’t exist but ninety-nine percent of the population just ain’t going to go there.”

    In other words: “Oh, come on you hopeless romantics, you’ll never end slavery, racism, women’s oppression, class distinctions, climate destruction ……… Let’s all be realistic and accept the “hard’ choices in life etc….because no one will ever agree with your fantasies of a better world. Just let me continue to stroke your moral pragmatism some more until you are truly ready to face reality as it really is”

    Mad in America has a WEALTH of archived articles that are well researched at a very high scientific standard exposing the harm done by ECT.

    Just go into their (MIA) search bar (top right) and put in “ECT archives – Mad in America” and then click on that where it appears.

    There are dozens and dozens of articles refuting everything Healy is minimizing and rationalizing about in his “oh so charming” moral gymnastics. And don’t forget to read the comment sections under these articles where ECT victim/survivors provide first hand knowledge of the harm done by ECT and psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • James

    Thanks for responding.

    Yes, it would be “nice” if we could all “get along” and be “tolerant of different viewpoints” within our important social justice movement against the medical model.

    BUT I ask: what price do we pay if we fail to recognize that there are critical dividing line questions of principle within BOTH the scientific and political arenas at this particular historical juncture in America and throughout the world?

    AND these critical issues of principle (in the scientific and political arena) intersect on many levels, and they will have serious and dire consequences if they are not resolved in a direction of a more accurate scientific interpretation of how the world actually works, and also what social and political systems and institutions need to be developed to create a more just and equitable world environment.

    Yes James, more minor differences in both theory and practice (in our movement) should be tolerated and worked out over time through vigorous and respectful struggle.

    But ECT is NOT merely a MINOR issue of difference.

    You cannot be a vigorous opponent of racism, but then at the same time uphold the subjugation of women in society, and somehow expect people to seriously listen to your objections to racism.

    It is the same reason why Scientology should not be allowed and/or tolerated within our movement. Yes, they have made some scientific critiques of the harm done by psychiatry, BUT they are in reality a dangerous cult that perpetrates enormous harm to its members and other vulnerable people who get sucked into their cult. Any carefully reading of former Scientology member accounts will detail a litany of abuses and harm cause by this organization.

    David Healy creates much confusion, and ultimately harms our movement by his vigorous support and promotion of ECT.

    James, you said you only found one pro ECT quote from Healy. In my search, the VERY FIRST source found on the internet provided a plethora of pro ECT musings by Healy.

    To prove that he really DOES support and promote ECT, just check out (below) the incredible lengths to which he goes with such a myriad of moral and intellectual GYMNASTICS to justify the value of ECT. Dr. Philip Hickey would have a field day and make mincemeat of these half baked justifications for why ECT is not “as bad” as psychiatric drugs.

    I will now post some of Healy’s writings and then include the link below this comment. I will deal with the issue of Breggin in a later comment.

    (David Healy)

    “…The call to ban ECT is linked to ideas that mental illness doesn’t exist – and indeed that disease doesn’t exist given the benefits ECT can produce in NMS and Parkinson’s disease. There is a romance to the idea that disease doesn’t exist but ninety-nine percent of the population just ain’t going to go there.

    Romance might sound pejorative. I was going to say ethical nobility. When anesthesia was developed in the nineteenth century, it led some, who could not accept the idea of benefiting the many at the expense of the few, to agonies. There was an ethical nobility to such agonies in 1860, but most of us would regard their rehearsal now as romantic. Some of us split the difference and regard the bargain medicine has made as Faustian, but when it comes to the crunch of cancer or the maelstrom of melancholia we take the bargain and opt for anesthesia or ECT.

    See Sherwin Nuland’s extraordinary TED talk on ECT. But for every Nuland who gets the call right, the Devil probably wins in having ECT inflicted on someone who shouldn’t have it – but s/he wins even more comfortably when it comes to drugs.

    At the end of the day, I don’t see it as my role to decide for anyone what treatments they should or shouldn’t have. The message that the benefits you can get from me are linked to poisons, mutilations and shocks would reduce the use of all treatments across medicine, however anyone thinks they help, but they would still be given by some doctors to more than those who stand to benefit, or be demanded by some who don’t figure on meeting Dirty Harry.

    The resistance to the message that medicines are poisons is not confined to mental health. Delivered at a recent event at the Hay-on-Wye HowTheLightGetsIn Festival, the message was not well received but it’s difficult in any other area of medicine to imagine hostility of the type that the critics of ECT mount, unless orchestrated by the pharmaceutical industry.

    ECT is the most disputed treatment in all of medicine. This hostility was once actively fed by Pharma with adverts for chlorpromazine and other psychotropic drugs portraying a switch to their medicine as a way to eliminate Cuckoo Nest scenarios. Pharma have done some brilliant things in the mental health domain. One was their linking of concerns about the risks of suicide on SSRIs to Scientology. This was doctor Rope-a-Doping. The same has been done to ECT. From the 1960s onwards Pharma influence has made it steadily more difficult and its now close to impossible to get symposia on ECT into APA or other mainstream psychiatry meetings – this is activist Rope-a-Doping.
    A true story

    In one of the comments below, Johanna Ryan notes the mystique ECT has among some doctors. I’ve never really noticed it. It’s difficult to believe any doctors see ECT as anything other than Shocking. It would be great if they saw drugs as poisons in the same way. Some say they’d have ECT themselves if they ever became melancholic but an increasing number of them have never used it or seen it used. The only person recorded as seeing ECT as anything other than shocking was Ken Kesey, the author of One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest, who rigged an apparatus up in his garage thinking it might offer something similar to an LSD trip.

    But ECT is iconic in other ways. Clint Eastwood’s movie The Changeling opens with the line – This is a True Story. Not based on a True Story but an actual True Story. The Changeling portrays the horrors of psychiatry as they have been since One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest – through involuntary ECT, The problem is the heroine’s incarceration happened 10 years before ECT was invented. There is something about ECT that all but compels people to use it as a symbol of the horrors of mental health systems. There is something about health which means we ignore where the real problems are coming from when ECT and anything else is used.

    The people most likely to profit out of Dirty Harry turning into a pussycat or talking to an empty chair are Lilly, GSK and Pfizer. Sorting out the honchos who make the treatments that cause the most damage would take care of the problems linked to ECT en passant, but we’ll be a long time waiting for Harry to tell a drug company executive to make his day.

    Meanwhile in another part of town….”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Yingyang, your response to James is absolutely correct.

    James

    You said the following about asking Healy about his support AND promotion of ECT:
    “Why would it be done? To gratify the people who think he doesn’t know the truth? Or try to shame him? His opinion on ECT is likely just as relevant as any other psychiatrist. Do we have any evidence he is an expert(beyond any other doctor) on ECT or other electrical treatments? In either case it does not relinquish him from the responsibility of his actions either.”

    Dr. Healy is a major PROMOTER of ECT in the field of psychiatry worldwide. He should be challenged, condemned, and YES, SHAMED for promoting such a harmful and oppressive form of treatment.

    Consider this for a moment:
    when a medical authority such as Healy, provides such great scientific criticism of the harm done by psychiatric drugs, and THEN goes “off the rails” on his analysis and support of ECT, this does great harm to the worldwide movement against the medical model.

    Healy’s positive work criticizing psychiatric drugs could potentially convinced and influence some vulnerable psychiatric victims to try ECT, and thus put them at great peril.

    LACK OF SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY (by doctors, scientists, and other activists) in the movement against the medical model, allows the psychiatric establishment some leeway to ridicule and marginalize a legitimate social justice movement. This can be done in a similar way that they sometimes effectively use the cult of Scientology to smear us.

    Unfortunately, the movement against the medical model has some advocates who, not only lack scientific consistency, but have literally gone “off the rails” when it comes to analyzing the science around Covid 19, vaccines, and the value of masks etc.

    For example, Dr. Peter Breggin (who was a former champion in the fight against the medical model) is now so far “off the rails,” and so scientifically inconsistent in his recent writings, that he has become a MAJOR LIABILITY to our movement. We must seriously criticize such individuals, and clearly distance ourselves from their highly negative influence on our movement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rasx

    You have a powerful story and very well told. You also present many insights into how psychiatry and the medical model divert people’s attention from the very direct experiences of abuse and trauma within family life that is at the heart of why people present with so much psychological distress that gets labeled as “mental illness.”

    However, I think it is essential for all of us to move this particular narrative to another level of analysis.

    Most of these dysfunctional and abusive parents and their entire backward family cultural did not develop out of nowhere, and is not, somehow, the product of “bad genetics.”

    Most abusive parents, themselves, were also the victims of traumatic and abusive histories. This does NOT excuse their behaviors, but should make us DEEPLY analyze all the inherent forms of inequality, prejudice, misogyny, patriarchy, daily trauma, and mind crippling forms of poverty in a class based and profit based economic and political system.

    At the highest level of assessment of all that is wrong with psychiatry and the medical model, is how it DOES EVERY THING POSSIBLE to divert our attention and finger pointing away from examining all the many oppressive institutions that prop up this system.

    For in the final analysis, if we really want to end the medical model (and all its forms of oppression) we will need to make major systemic changes throughout the entire society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To Jay Joseph, Marie, and others

    I think it is more correct to say that on some level, genetics is a factor in ALL aspects of human behavior. HOWEVER, it also critically important and more correct to emphasize that any kind of so-called “human predisposition” (expressed in genetic makeup) is TRIGGERED and then reinforced by the surrounding environment.

    For example, human beings are capable of behaving very violently and selfishly, especially in highly threatening and highly competitive environments where trauma is a common experience. Are there gene combinations in the human species, that allow for humans to express these behaviors as a necessity of evolutionary survival? Yes!

    At the same time, there is CLEAR evidence in the sociological history of the human species, that in some more egalitarian, less competitive (for natural resources etc.), and with less traumatic experiences, that human beings have behaved in highly cooperative and loving ways, with extremely RARE instances of violence and so-called selfish behaviors. Are there gene combinations in the human species, that ALSO allow for humans to express THESE TYPE OF BEHAVIORS (triggered by the surrounding environment) as a necessity of evolutionary survival? Yes!

    Another important example to consider: If we take two people from roughly the same environment, and subject them to extreme forms of torture – one of the those people might start to mentally breakdown (with forms of psychosis – psychologically splitting off from reality etc.) after (let’s say) 16 hours of such treatment. The OTHER person being tortured might take (let’s say) 21 hours before psychologically splitting off etc.

    Are both environmental history AND GENETICS somehow involved in the difference of the 5 hours that it took to achieve a psychological breakdown for these two individuals. Yes, I believe it correct to posit that analysis.

    HOWEVER, why!!! should our society spend one dime (instead of billions of dollars), and even one minute of time on trying to find some genetic difference between the two individuals in the above scenario???

    We SHOULD INSTEAD be spending ALL our time on finding out why we have a society with all the kind of sociological structures (in the environment) that allows for the existence of these anti-social behaviors to even exist in the first place. AND then focus ALL our attention on creating a social ENVIRONMENT that will bring forward and reinforce the very BEST qualities of the human species.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • James, I REALLY respect your open and humble response. Many writers here would NOT have even responded to the criticism in my comment.

    In this type of interview situation, many journalists might hesitate to raise certain controversial questions for fear of being accused of “setting up” a surprise attack on the person being interviewed.

    One way to avoid this from happening, is to alert the person ahead of time that you will be asking a few tough questions on “such and such” issues, in addition to the main topic.

    I am not suggesting this approach always has to be done ahead of time, but there might some occasions where it works best. Just more food for thought for future interviews.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Let me preface my comment by saying, I love the writing and interviewing that James Moore does at MIA, including the majority of this piece with David Healy. HOWEVER, someone MISSED talking about the enormous “elephant in the room.”

    James’ very last comment above COULD HAVE BEEN the necessary tough (and sugary) introduction to an essential question by a truly fearless journalist.

    First, I will provide James’ words and then add my own in Italics:

    “Before we wrap up, I do just want to acknowledge that I am so grateful to you because you are one of the few doctors who will get down in the weeds with people like me who have experienced difficulties and have an eye-level conversation with people about their experiences and what they might have learned.
    There is so much humility in doing that that’s missing from many doctors that I’ve interacted with who just put themselves on a pedestal. Also, your long history of curiosity and of looking at these things through a fresh lens and a different perspective.”

    {But I must now ask you a question on a very controversial and serious topic. For years you have been a major advocate and torch carrier for an often highly condemned and criticized so-called “treatment” for depression. Over the last decades reams of new evidenced (including significant numbers of personal horror stories) have emerged citing the extreme dangers of electro-shock, including long term or permanent brain damage, especial severe memory loss and processing issues.
    David, are you willing to be self-critical at this time about your past support for electro-shock, AND also,would you be willing to take the lead in calling for a moratorium on this form of so-called treatment, while a new comprehensive AND independent scientific evaluation could be done on the overall safety, and/or dangers of electro-shock?
    Isn’t this form of self evaluation in keeping with the need for true scientific rigor and upholding a doctors’ pledge “…to do no harm.”}

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Well, Brett and Steve

    Now that you mention it, there are indeed drug companies who produce BOTH “anti-psychotic” drugs (major tranquilizers,) AND drugs that treat diabetes.

    Just as there are ALSO pharmaceutical corporations who both produce opiate type pain killers AND the alleged drugs that are meant to “treat” opiate addiction, like suboxone etc. HOW CONVEEENIENT! said the “church lady.”

    Oh, capitalism, what a simply wonderful system!!!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    I’ll repeat my question:

    “So does your sarcastic humor {mocking human attempts at building a classless society} imply that you believe that a class based profit system FILLED with multiple forms of exploitation (including the medical model) is the very best that human beings are capable of?”

    Human societies need to have both a political and economic structure. If you choose to belittle socialist type solutions, than what system do you propose?

    Steve, you say (about Marx’s socialist/communist model):
    “I am not sure his solution is workable based on the fundamentals of human nature. And to date, history has proven my observations to be accurate.”

    You say your “not sure”, but apparently you’re sure enough to use crude humor to mock those who have attempted to build a more equitable society.

    And you use the phrase “fundamentals of human nature” as your over simplified reasoning for one reason why socialism won’t work.

    What are these so called “fundamentals”? Haven’t we heard a lot about “fundamental of human nature” from the proponents of the medical model to justify their “genetic theories of original sin.”

    And finally, you resort to the false argument “…And to date, history has proven my observations to be accurate.”

    If human beings adopted the view that since prior “history” was unable to successfully create something new and revolutionary, therefore “it never will,” than nothing innovative and truly revolutionary would EVER be discovered.

    Human nature throughout history has proven to be quite malleable, and will clearly respond to the surrounding environment with behaviors of a high degree of “cooperation” or its opposite, “aggression and greed.”

    Historically, non threatening type environments with higher degrees of cooperation and egalitarianism etc. have brought out the very best of human qualities.

    Can’t we learn from these examples? And isn’t it our human responsibility to try our best to find economic and political structures that will truly move humanity forward and reinforce our best qualities as a species?

    Can we say that modern capitalism/imperialism has clearly become a failed experiment that threatens the very existence of the planet. If so, than we need to desperately find a new alternative. What is that alternative?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Your other comments above were very on the mark and educational.

    Why resort to joking (using Mad Magazine) about the serious and courageous attempt by human beings (millions who died in these struggles) to try and design and create a classless society without any forms of exploitation?

    The very definition of a stateless and classless communist society is one DEVOID of ANY forms of human exploitation.

    There has NEVER been any truly communist societies YET created on the planet earth. You know this to be true.

    There have been only a few serious attempts at building a “socialist” society. They only lasted, at best, possibly 30 years or so. They were viciously attacked and surrounded by hostile capitalist countries, and also had internal weaknesses related to their newness and ideological shortcomings.

    So does your sarcastic humor imply that you believe that a class based profit system FILLED with multiple forms of exploitation (including the medical model) is the very best that human beings are capable of?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • And BTW, Marie. you used the phrase “…and all sorts of other evil traits,” to describe certain human behaviors.

    These behaviors are NOT “evil” – they are ADAPTIVE behaviors that arise when human beings are placed in a highly competitive and often threatening environment. Sometimes certain of these behaviors can be quite necessary and helpful for survival in a very hostile environment.

    I don’t think you would be calling the socially unacceptable (and quite often self-defeating) behaviors that get labeled as “mental illness,” – “evil.”
    Are they not “adaptive” behaviors to a very stressful and often traumatic world?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Marie, you say: “Humans are filled with love, but also with hate, envy, a desire to dominate, and all sorts of other evil traits. And those despicable traits are dominant throughout history and in all sorts of systems.”

    Yes, human beings are capable of both very loving and compassionate behaviors, as well as, selfish and violent behaviors. Are you therefore presenting some sort of “genetic” justification for us to accept exploitation and oppression as a fact of life we must ALWAYS live with?

    Human nature has proven to be an extremely malleable historical entity. The earliest tribal/communal societies were based on very HIGH levels of cooperation out of NECESSITY for their survival.

    Our ultimate goal in rebuilding the world as a better place to live, is to design an economic and political environment that brings out, and reinforces, the very best qualities of the human species, AND diminishes (over time) the more negative qualities.

    Capitalism by its very nature AND design is built upon a hierarchical structure of unequal classes and inherent exploitation of one class over another. The working classes are NEVER paid the full value of the labor they create. They often live in the barest of subsistence levels of survival, and ultimately are made to fight (and die for) wars of political and economic domination over other nations and peoples.

    Socialism (by design) is an attempt to build a society that (over time) can eliminate all class oppression and forms of exploitation. Socialist experiments on this planet are LESS THAN 200 years old. New and emerging societies on this magnitude CANNOT be expected to succeed on their very first attempts.

    Without referring to human genetics, please explain to me what is inherently wrong with the theoretical model of a socialist society?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “This article is almost funny….I wish MIA would no longer publish articles like this, which are ideological, show little insight and have only a marginal connection to mental health.”

    I say:”What’s so funny about peace , love, and understanding.?”

    Of course, capitalism was an advance over feudalism, but that does NOT mean we shouldn’t take a cold hard look at the state of the modern capitalist/imperialist world.

    You say: “Under capitalism in the United States children are educated and most people have health care and housing.”

    The United States has LESS THAN 5% of the worlds’ population. Tell me where and how did this country accumulate all its wealth to create such a high standard of living? Have you ever heard about imperialist domination of Third World countries and their natural resources and cheap labor?

    You say: “Were conditions better under Mao…”

    Well frankly, if one could ask the people living under British controlled feudalism how it compared to life in China during Mao’s last 30 years of life. The average life span of a Chinese person DOUBLED between the 1949 successful socialist revolution, and when Mao died in 1977.

    Yes, China today is a very repressive state capitalist government and system competing for world dominance with other Eastern and Western imperialist powers.

    Where is YOUR nuance when it comes to analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the very first socialist systems historically attempted in a world where they were surrounded by hostile capitalist powers hell bent on their imminent destruction? Why can’t systems built upon “cooperation, peace, love, and understanding” be made to work for the betterment of human kind?

    We live in a capitalist/imperialist dominated world where mental health systems in EVERY country are part of the status quo that both reinforces and uses an oppressive medical model as a critical institution for the “powers that be” to maintain power and control over the masses.

    I am GLAD that MIA chooses to have articles that deeply contextualizes the current state of the medical model.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • How about ADDING a NUMBER 8) explanation to the number 7) (which seems to make the most scientific sense).

    How can this entire article be written WITHOUT making reference to the kind of world human beings are currently living in???

    “7) The final explanation is that antidepressant drugs (or treatment in general) may be responsible for more harm than benefit. Thus, even if a small number of people experience a short-term benefit, this may be offset by long-term failure and an increased number of relapses.”

    AND FINALLY…

    8) Human beings live in a very stressful and traumatic world filled with economic, political, and social inequality, with ongoing daily stressors that continuously push people over the edge of psychological tolerance. NO AMOUNT of so-called “treatment” or other social support systems can overcome this environmental disadvantage. Make the world a more hospitable and compassionate place to live, AND THEN the depression rates will start to decline dramatically.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This was a very well written indictment of psychiatry’s position on prescribing antidepressants. It does reveal some of the very limited information and faulty research which some psychiatrists use to still defend their prescribing of these highly dangerous drugs.

    Dan Kriegman said: “There appears to be a tendency for antidepressants to reduce emotional reactivity which for some people may include a significant decrease in distressing thoughts and feelings.”

    I would disagree with the word, “significant.” The actual research show a “minor” reduction in so-called “symptoms.” AND I would definitely add the word “short-term” to describe the so-called “decrease in distressing thoughts and feelings.”

    All of this research is based on a relatively short-term period of analysis of those people receiving these mind altering drugs. And all of this research IGNORES the significant number of people (victims) who end up going down the “rabbit hole” of a seemingly endless number of new prescriptions of other drugs, including dangerous drug cocktails.

    Higher doses of a new and different SSRI (with different sets of bad side effects), and then benzos (dealing with akathisia and the higher amounts of anxiety as their depression fails to remit), and then mood stabilizers (to deal with the SSRI caused mania etc.), and then anti-psychotics (to deal with the drug induced insomnia and related psychosis etc.), and the list goes on, with perhaps multiple hospitalizations and failed suicide attempts.

    AND what about all the SUCCESSFUL suicide attempts – who in the field of psychiatry and Big Pharma are actually interested to know and report those oppressive statistics?

    Psychiatry and Big Pharma keep using the “blame the victim” phrase, “TREATMENT RESISTANT DEPRESSION” to describe patients who either don’t get better, or who will most likely get worse over time from their drugging.

    Let’s start turning this phrase back on these criminals, and called it more accurately, “TREATMENT CAUSED DEPRESSION.”

    My only criticism of this blog is that it does not go far enough. When we consider the millions of people harmed by psychiatry and ALL their mind altering and dangerous drugs, the only moral conclusion we can arrive at is to abolish psychiatry, and hold some of their leaders (along with the Big Pharma CEOS) criminally responsible.

    AND lastly, psychiatry is now too big and important to the survival of the profit based capitalist system, to be allowed to fail, or have its power diminished. Mere perseverance of exposure and rational thinking or writing (THOUGH IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY) will NOT be enough to stop all forms of psychiatric abuse. Revolutionary systemic change is essential to finally end this type of institutional oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bravo! This is a very scientific and well researched blog.

    I would differ with the “pillar crumbling” analogy for the “chemical imbalance” theory AND for current psychiatric genetic theories.

    We cannot underestimate how much power psychiatry and their medical model wields in today’s world. They have become crucial “pillars” in propping up and sustaining a profit based capitalist system.

    In today’s world it is now quite possible for “alternate realities” to co-exist in the vast “marketplace of ideas.” Major systemic change will be required to bring down these “pillars ” of oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    (I posted this recent comment in another very old thread that you might not have seen)

    Kindredspirit

    I am so glad you are posting here at MIA again. I read some of your past comments regarding your decision to step back for a while.

    I wholeheartedly agree that MIA has lost some of its past activist edge, and has somewhat retreated into a more limited “educational” role. This “educational” role has unfortunately been divorced (and consciously steered away) from some of the more volatile polarizing developments in the broader society.

    It is a mistake to separate the intense battles over science (on many fronts) and “alternative realities” in the current political realm, from what is happening in the overall battle to end psychiatric oppression and the medical model.

    I DO understand the intense political pull (“on the path of least resistance”) to steer things away (and separate out) these struggles, for fear of losing part of your audience. I also believe all this was happening (at the same time) as the earlier wave of anti-psychiatric activism was suffering an overall ebb from a previous high water mark of activism – that is, the 6-8 years following the 2010 arrival of RW’s path breaking book, “Anatomy of an Epidemic.”

    During those years there was a failure on the part of existing activists to consolidate some type (or types) of advanced anti-psychiatry organizations to take advantage of the current crest of political exposures and activism at that time. These rises and falls (ebbs and flows) are a natural occurrence in long term political struggles, and we have to analyze and sum up these developments (and our mistakes) in light of current political developments.

    I don’t have to tell you just how polarized and dangerous the current political climate is, and how important it is for us to chart a course that will move things away from a devastating form of Right Wing totalitarianism.

    On a positive note, I do notice a growing deeper political frustration and anger in MIA content, that reflects the awareness that simply doing more and better exposures of psychiatry and the medical model will not just somehow cause their “house of cards” to fall.

    Psychiatry and their medical model has now evolved into such an important cog in the maintenance of the profit based capitalist system, that simply doing more scientific type exposures (and desperately seeking the broadest audience) will not fundamentally bring down psychiatry. Anti-medical model critiques will just be labelled as another “alternative reality” in the vast “marketplace of ideas.”

    The struggle against psychiatric oppression and the medical model IS (by its nature) and must (more and more) become connected to all the other major struggles for social justice in an overall oppressive world. And this will require activism and political exposures, that are willing to risk losing part of ones audience, in order to uphold the truth and draw the very real connections between all of these important struggles. I certainly hope this is the direction things are going, and I will do my best to encourage things in this direction.

    Carry on! Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    I am so glad you are posting here at MIA again. I read some of your past comments regarding your decision to step back for a while.

    I wholeheartedly agree that MIA has lost some of its past activist edge, and has somewhat retreated into a more limited “educational” role. This “educational” role has unfortunately been divorced (and consciously steered away) from some of the more volatile polarizing developments in the broader society.

    It is a mistake to separate the intense battles over science (on many fronts) and “alternative realities” in the current political realm, from what is happening in the overall battle to end psychiatric oppression and the medical model.

    I DO understand the intense political pull (“on the path of least resistance”) to steer things away (and separate out) these struggles, for fear of losing part of your audience. I also believe all this was happening (at the same time) as the earlier wave of anti-psychiatric activism was suffering an overall ebb from a previous high water mark of activism – that is, the 6-8 years following the 2010 arrival of RW’s path breaking book, “Anatomy of an Epidemic.”

    During those years there was a failure on the part of existing activists to consolidate some type (or types) of advanced anti-psychiatry organizations to take advantage of the current crest of political exposures and activism at that time. These rises and falls (ebbs and flows) are a natural occurrence in long term political struggles, and we have to analyze and sum up these developments (and our mistakes) in light of current political developments.

    I don’t have to tell you just how polarized and dangerous the current political climate is, and how important it is for us to chart a course that will move things away from a devastating form of Right Wing totalitarianism.

    On a positive note, I do notice a growing deeper political frustration and anger in MIA content, that reflects the awareness that simply doing more and better exposures of the psychiatry and the medical model will not just somehow cause their “house of cards” to fall.

    Psychiatry and their medical has now evolved into such an important cog in the maintenance of the profit based capitalist system, that simply doing more scientific type exposures (and desperately seeking the broadest audience) will not fundamentally bring down psychiatry. Anti-medical model critiques will just be labelled as another “alternative reality” in the vast “marketplace of ideas.”

    The struggle against psychiatric oppression and the medical model IS (by its nature) and must (more and more) become connected to all the other major struggles for social justice in an overall oppressive world. And this will require activism and political exposures, that are willing to risk losing part of ones audience, in order to uphold the truth and draw the very real connections between all of these important struggles. I certainly hope this is the direction things are going, and I will do my best to encourage things in this direction.

    Carry on! Richard

    Report comment

  • “The so called mRNA COVID vaccine was a total failure.”

    Huh! Where is the science to back up this statement?

    Yes, vaccinated people can be infected with Covid, but the vaccines have literally saved MILLIONS of lives across the planet.

    There is clear evidence that vaccines (and certain drugs) prevent serious Covid disease, reduce hospitalization, and YES, reduce the overall number of deaths by a significant factor.

    And this success of the vaccines has NOT been offset by any significant amount of serious side effects.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “Human life begins at CONCEPTION, not birth….”

    Says who? Scrapping cells off of the uterine wall is NOT ending a “human life.”

    Contraception that interferes with an embryo’s ability to attach to the uterine wall is NOT ending a “human life.”

    These so called morality debates CANNOT be separated from a women’s right to control her own body and reproductive rights.

    If you support the human rights of all people to absolutely determine what drugs or other psychiatric procedures are performed on their bodies, than you must also support that same right for women when it comes to contraception and abortion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Russell

    Thank you so much for that reply – I am glad to support you in any way I can.

    You know I was thinking about another very sad and enraging aspect to your story. If you sent this blog summary of your daughter’s murder to EVERY single doctor, nurse, hospital administrator, judge etc. who were complicit in her murder, they would most likely (perhaps secretly) express relief that her death occurred “on your watch” so to speak. This would (in their minds) potentially absolved them from any financial and/or moral liability related to her death. AND I am convinced they would actually blame you and your wife for her demise for not fully buying into (or in so many ways resisting) their Draconian and thoroughly oppressive forms of so-called “treatment.”

    This would just be another very pernicious form of a “blame the victim” approach, so they can avoid any type of moral, legal, or financial responsibility for her murder. I hope it is somehow possible for you to legally sue these criminals, and then use that money to help lay bare the oppressive nature of psychiatry and their bogus medical model.

    Your daughter was blessed to have such courageous fighters standing in her corner (doing the very best they could) during this horrendous nightmare.

    Carry on! Much Respect, Richard

    Report comment

  • Russ and Carol

    So deeply sorry for your loss.

    I must say that this personal story represents the worst kind of torture and psychiatric abuse imaginable. It reads like a modern day horror story that renders “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and Chucky in “Child’s Play” seem like simple nursery rhymes with playful characters, next to those real life characters upholding AND practicing psychiatry and the medical model.

    I skimmed through this story because I’ve heard the story before (having read several HUNDRED psychiatric abuse horror stories) and also having a dear friend who suffered similar types of psychiatric oppression. I also worked 22 years in community “mental health” (as an LMHC) and know the cruelty potential, and harm done by psychiatry and their entire medical model.

    I simply cannot read EVERY detail ANYMORE, because I just become totally enraged . . . Can there be ANY DOUBT after reading this, that there needs to be major systemic POLITICAL solutions to end this horrific madness engineered by Big Pharma and psychiatry.

    Psychiatry must be targeted and ultimately abolished. And this can only happen if we are willing to challenge the future existence of a profit based capitalist system, that feeds off of, AND reinforces its existence.

    I deeply admire Carol and Russ Stence for speaking out about this horrific abuse, and for refusing to allow themselves to be crushed by the psychiatric murder of their precious daughter, Catherine – may her spirit live on in your heroic efforts to seek justice for all psychiatric victims.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Joanna and Mark

    So glad you shook up the establishment with your recent research and written articles. AND they (psychiatry and Big Pharma) will seemingly NEVER cease to come up with excuses and bogus arguments to justify their past 30 years of rotten science and harmful “treatments” when it comes to depression (and SSRI drugs).

    What stands out most of all in all of these debates is just how desperate those in power are to NOT have people seriously examine what is wrong with their profit based societies (and related culture) in which they have so much power and privilege. For them, it ALWAYS has to be faulty genes and biology to explain troubled human psychological states of mind and related behaviors.

    And when we talk about environmental stressors or other trauma type events in people’s lives, yes, some of these events will exist (through chance happenings) in every society or system.

    However, some systems, have inherent forms of class divisions and other forms of exploitation and trauma built in to their systemic DNA. This creates an environment with overly intense stressors that more often pushes the human genetic genome to its extreme limits of ability to cope in normal ways.

    Of course, most likely all neural chemicals (and their processes) in the brain are somehow connected to depressive or psychotic type thought patterns, HOWEVER, that says nothing about true causation and/or about how to safely resolve (in a positive way) those kinds of extreme human psychological states.

    Human beings have the genetic capability to be very violent, AND also to exhibit very compassionate and loving behaviors. Certain DIFFERENT environments will trigger both of these examples of human thought patterns and behaviors.

    Our vitally important historic task, is to create the environment that will ultimately bring out the very best of what the human species has to offer the planet and the Universe.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “In fact, well-known mainstream psychiatrists now claim that anti-psychiatrists have promoted the chemical imbalance myth to make psychiatry look stupid.”

    This is the equivalent of Trump and all his Right Wing fascist supporters blaming the insurrection on Antifa and left wingers etc.

    Some of the most important things to take away from this new report are the following:

    1) Mad in America has been reporting this same type of science for over a decade. This should add some credibility to all those critical of psychiatry and their medical model.

    2) Over 90% of the public still firmly believes this myth about “chemical imbalances.” The public needs to know that Big Pharma and psychiatry literally spent hundreds of billions of dollars in the world’s largest PR campaign (for over 3 decades) to spread this lie about serotonin, and promote their oppressive diagnoses and harmful drugs – all at the altar of a profit based capitalist system.

    3) Big Pharma and psychiatry know they have spread lies about “chemical imbalances” and have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to correct this erroneous thinking so prevalent in the mass consciousness. And we know perfectly well why they have done nothing about this, and will continue to do nothing.

    4) Unfortunately, this new report will most likely not in any way reduce the prolific prescribing of these dangerous antidepressant drugs. The power of psychiatry with their medical model and mass drugging is just TOO IMPORTANT for maintaining the status quo to be allowed to suffer any profit or power losses.

    “Come to the Cabaret”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Unfortunately, Twelve Step programs promote circular reasoning type arguments that end up “blaming the victim” for their inability to “get sober.”

    For example, if someone keeps relapsing they are told, “you’re just not working the Steps the right way.” So there can be NO questioning of their “disease concept ” of addiction, or their religious moralizing with slogans like “Just Let Go. and Let God” – “You Haven’t Turned Your Will Over to God Yet” etc…

    This type of moralizing makes people feel like they are “personal failures.” INSTEAD of looking for and developing the actual mental and physical skills needed to break a serious addiction.

    Millions and millions of people have developed the necessary skills to stop self destructive habits without 12 Step groups, religion, or counseling of any kind.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • AA is just another “disease” model that lacks any scientific proof that a true “disease” process exists within the human body.

    Yes, AA and NA does help some people, but unfortunately its model dominates 90% of the rehab industry. This becomes a major “turn off,” and quite often a “turn away” for people who need desperate help for addiction problems.

    There are other alternative self help groups that neither push religion or the the disease model of addiction, such as Smart Recovery and Rational Recovery.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “Not sure what this has to do with psychiatric diagnosis and treatment?…It’s a very complicated issue.”

    No, it’s really not all that complicated. Especially when you consider that HALF of the U.S. population just had a fundamental human right (the control of reproductive rights and one’s own body) taken away by the mere stroke of a pen.

    Taken away by so-called “justices” who once again are trying to impose their “theology” on people’s “biology.” This is an example of patriarchy in one of its worst forms; not fundamentally all that different than what we criticize in those countries ruled by extreme forms of Muslim theology.

    I applaud Madison and MIA for publishing this important summary of author Kevin Carriere’s journal article on a reproductive justice framework.

    And this issue (just like racial oppression) has EVERYTHING to do with psychiatric diagnoses and the medical model. Both minorities and women in this society are more likely to become victims of all forms of psychiatric abuse than other segments of our society.

    AND this recent SCOTUS ruling will only ADD additional social and economic stressors to both women and minorities, especially those without the economic means to pursue appropriate medical care.

    One CANNOT really call themselves a feminist OR believe in equal rights for ALL human beings, unless they firmly uphold the fundamental right of a woman to have an abortion – ON DEMAND AND WITHOUT APOLOGY!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rebel

    We are ALL political – whether we want to be or not.

    We are either “political activists” – trying move society toward certain political aims and goals.

    OR we are “political fodder” – people being moved by OTHER forces in society who MAY NOT necessarily be doing so in our best interests.

    If someone chooses to go off by themselves (as an “individual”) and just meditate or pray for change, then I would argue that they will be subject to the “political” whims of those in society who are actually engaged in political activities affecting the very institutions we must live under.

    Yes, “politics” can be risky, but I would argue that it is FAR MORE risky to let others do it for you.

    BTW, “politics” does not necessarily mean “running for office,” but can involve ANY TYPE of effort we make to influence how people think and act in the world around us, especially as it pertains to certain established institutions in society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rebel says:
    “With all due respect, “theoreticality is not practicality.” The comments made speak almost of “genuine socialism” as a “utopia.” Sadly, “utopias” are just that “utopias” and exist only in fiction and fantasy.”

    Nowhere have I EVER referred to socialism as any kind of “utopia.” These are your words, and a “straw man” argument about the nature of socialism.

    I spoke above about the GRADUAL elimination of exploitation under socialism. Socialism as a TRANSITIONAL SOCIETY (on a long journey to a truly classless society) will take many generations of education and transformation of both the young and the old.

    This period of “transformation” will require continuous struggle within all political and social structures. The “birthmarks” from the past history of capitalist divisions and exploitative thinking within society will require continuous debate and wrangling over new ideas and a total “breaking with the past.”

    This will be a dynamic and exciting process of political change – never boring – with the the constant risk of some people in society trying to take things back to past forms of exploitation and domination.

    Rebel says:
    “The answer always resides in each individual and his or her relationship to Spirit. …In my way of thinking, it seems almost delusional to even consider that “socialism” can do it either.”

    Unless “individuals” become part of an actual political movement for major systemic change against all the oppressive institutions within a profit based capitalist society – NOTHING will change.

    The “spirit” we need is that which is can only be derived from the collective struggle of humanity for a better and more egalitarian world. This kind of struggle (creating a new and fertile environment) is what has the potential to bring out the very best in the human spirit, and an evolving human nature.

    In fact we are now in real danger of losing what little democracy actually exists in the U.S., and descending into full blown fascism.

    What would truly be “delusional” in these circumstances, is to expect the current status quo of a profit based capitalist system to solve the very problems it has inherently created itself. Psychiatry and the medical model are an essential feature of this status quo.

    To Rebel and others:
    it is time we begin to explore brand new political and social options in the world. Climate destruction, world war, and the developing second “civil war,” demands we think “big” and “outside the box.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Birdsong

    There are NO genuine socialist or communist countries in the world today, so your comment above equating systemic flaws regarding psychiatry and these two types of systems, does not make complete sense.

    Theoretically, there is NO contradiction between capitalism and psychiatry. Capitalism is a class based system that, by its very nature, has built in mechanisms of exploitation and oppression – it was NEVER intended to be fair or egalitarian by its own design.

    Theoretically, genuine socialism is, by design,, meant to gradually eliminate classes and all forms of human exploitation. So psychiatry (by its true nature) is in total contradiction to these goals and systemic aims.

    Yes, it is possible in a newly emerging socialist society for there to still be leftover forms of psychiatric type abuses. After all, the medical model (and all its pseudoscience) has a deep hold in the thinking of most people in the world today.

    The struggle against the medical model will be an important struggle within the newly emerging socialist societies. HOWEVER, it will be FAR EASIER to argue against psychiatry and the medical model under a socialist system, because it DIRECTLY contradicts the fundamental aims and goals of socialist theory and practice.

    In contrast, psychiatry and the medical model, has become an ESSENTIAL FEATURE for the future existence of capitalism. It serves the profit motives of Big Pharma, along with the power motives behind expanding the guild interests of psychiatry. AND IMPORTANTLY, it shifts people’s attention away from the inherent exploitation, alienation, and trauma within a class based profit system to make people focus on “bad genes” and “personal flaws.” AND of course, it drugs and anesthetizes potentially rebellious sections of society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • lookingUP

    I have been a political activist since the late 1960’s; that’s when I first began to question the myth of the American Dream and American Exceptualism. I quickly became a critic of the U.S capitalist/imperialist system, and I am still a firm believer that a new form of socialism is the next step that humanity must take to save the planet.

    I first became a critic of psychiatry and the medical model in the early 1990’s, and I fought its takeover of the community “mental health” system while working in a New Bedford MA. clinic (as an LMHC counselor) for 22 years. I worked with hundreds of people facing all types of severe psychological distress. I did my best to keep people away from psychiatry and their disease/drug based approaches to so-called “treatment.” In this period of time I think I helped some people – but only they could fully answer your inquiry.

    Since MIA stated a decade ago. I have 17 blogs published at this website – the very same number as Niall McLaren. You should check through these blogs to compare our approaches to not only “helping” people , but also proposing a way forward.

    I have some respect for Niall McLaren and the work he has done to help people.

    In this historical period where class contradictions in the world have reached such a perilous point of intensity, I have little patience with people (who should know better) pointing everyone in the direction of *reforming* institutions and systems (like psychiatry and capitalism) when the real world evidence says they now belong in the dustbin of history.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jim Phelps says: “To be truly helpful, Mad in America should help readers with these kinds of decisions, not fan flames.”

    This statement is not only UNTRUE, but also defamatory towards any FAIR evaluation of the content of Mad in America (MIA) over the past decade.

    MIA has published an enormous amount of content that provides real world examples (both theoretical and practical) about how to survive and overcome mental states of severe psychological distress. This includes a plethora of alternative types of NON-psychiatric drug related therapies, AND personal stories of recovery (that includes stories of those who were harmed by the medical model approaches).

    At times, MIA published numerous stories of those people who found the short term and very cautious use of psychiatric drugs helpful in their journey to “recovery.”

    An absolute necessary part of that information MIA published over the past decade has been the dangers associated with the use of ALL psychiatric drugs. This is because NO ONE ELSE on the planet (except for a tiny group of authors of books and activists) was alerting people to these dangers.

    We cannot discuss this entire topic without addressing just how pervasive and prolific the entire medical model has become in the world, AND how this creates a gigantic “path of least resistance” even for more well informed clinicians.

    I worked for 22 years in a community health clinic in New Bedford MA., and watched the takeover of the medical model and the rampant uncontrolled growth of psychiatric drug prescriptions I worked with more than two dozen psychiatrists and nurse practitioners in that period of time.

    The few drug prescribers that I respected (including several who read Robert Whitaker’s books etc.) STILL, despite all their attempts at being a careful prescriber of these drugs, would get caught on a dangerous “path of least resistance.”

    There were so many people coming into the clinic in distress (many already on these drugs) and already deeply indoctrinated by psychiatry’s and Big Pharma’s “chemical imbalance” theory.

    This is a PR campaign never seen in human history before, to the tune of several hundred billion dollars, that has come to totally dominate the public narrative around anything related to “mental health.”

    Even the so-called informed drug prescribers could not avoid getting caught up in the “RABBIT HOLE” of psychiatric drug prescribing. This is where one drug is not “working” and causes all kinds of uncomfortable (and sometimes intolerable side effects like ‘akathisia”), and one NEW drug, or COCKTAIL of drugs is prescribed to deal with the so-called “symptoms” caused by the initial drug.

    Neither Robert Whitaker OR Jim Phelps discussed (above) how so-called more benign and “careful” prescribing of psychiatric drugs on the “path of least resistance” often leads to the extremely harmful and dangerous “RABBIT HOLE” of drug prescribing.

    There have hundreds of stories and comments by MIA writers and readers detailing stories of the harmful and dangerous “rabbit hole” of psychiatric drug prescribing that has led to sometimes decades of personal suffering and anguish.

    When Dr. Phelps says: “When to use an antidepressant, and for how long, requires careful, personalized decision-making—which MANY [my emphasis] psychiatrists do (granted, not enough. Find a young one if you can).”

    This is simply wishful thinking on his part, and a fundamental untruth about the state of his profession. Anyone who has worked around psychiatrists in hospitals and clinics knows that they are clearly on the “path of least resistance ” of drug prescribing and more often than not, start people down the dangerous “rabbit hole” from which many victims never return. This fact includes even a few “well meaning” and partially informed (about psych drug dangers) doctors.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Niall and others

    Let me prefaced my following comment with this statement. Niall McLaren comes across as a well meaning critic of psychiatry with some partial truths about what is wrong with the medical model. If I ever encountered a psychiatrist (God forbid!) in a hospital or jail, I would much prefer it were him (and a few other writers at MIA) than anyone else out there. BUT, when it comes to proposing the way forward, there are serious problems and contradictions in his analysis.

    Niall said: ” Despite the claims made on his {Szasz} behalf, he had no positive effect on psychiatry as it exists, I think he actually made things worse because it hardened attitudes all round.”

    What should we make of this highly confused comment?

    First off, Szasz’s greatest accomplishment was his brilliant presentation of the “myth of mental illness.” Should we really expect it to have a “positive” effect on such a backward and oppressive institution, other than educating the public and other potential victims, and perhaps, creating conditions within psychiatry for it to begin to split apart and be rendered less able to cause harm to people.

    AND, the second half of Niall’s above comment: “…he [Szasz] actually made things worse because it hardened attitudes all round.” is simply a recipe for telling people to AVOID exposing the truth about something because it could potentially polarize people who become more firm in their belief system.

    So what should we conclude from this? That it is better to remain silent and NOT tell the truth about oppressive theories or practice, and essentially “bury our heads in the sand” and hope things somehow get better by presenting tiny “bits and pieces” of truth, with the wish that people MAGICALLY put it altogether somewhere and sometime in the future. With this type of approach in the historical account of political change movements, NO human progress would have ever occurred.

    Yes, Szasz’s shortcomings were many – as I outlined a few above. BUT his exposure (as far as it went) of the “myth of mental illness” should be UPHELD AND CELEBRATED, because it has helped create more favorable conditions for true anti-psychiatry (and anti medical model) activists to unite that struggle with other social justice movements for more revolutionary systemic change in the future.

    Niall can talk about the “profit” hungry drug corporations and the fact that psychiatry and Big Pharma have misused their “power” etc. etc… BUT he is not willing to ever identify the fact that ALL THIS is taking place within a highly oppressive class based – profit based – capitalist/imperialist system.

    QUESTIONS: 1) Can psychiatry and the medical model be fundamentally changed and/or eliminated (your choice) WITHIN the current evolution of modern capitalism?
    2) Are they (psychiatry and capitalism) so mutually dependent on the other, that their future existence and trajectory in history cannot be separated?
    3) Isn’t it beyond the time to educate people about the truth of this symbiotic relationship, instead of FEARING that it’s TOO POLITICAL or might somehow lead to more POLARIZATION etc.?

    For Niall (to knowingly) leave out this kind of analysis and fail to address these kind of issues, is MISLEADING, and sadly ends up essentially LYING (regardless of intentions) to the masses about what we are truly up against in this insane world.

    The “polarization” that Niall and others fear so much, is happening at an accelerated pace (for many reasons) in this country (and others in Europe), AND BY REMAINING SILENT OR HALF STEPPING WITH THE TRUTH, it will do NOTHING except allow the forces of oppression and MORE authoritarianism to get STRONGER!

    We can and must do better than this!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Nicmart

    You said: “Szasz also supported economic freedom for all people.”

    What if a section (or class of people) representing 10 percent of the population controls 70 percent of all the wealth in a country, and the bottom 50 percent of the society controls only 2 percent of the wealth?

    AND what if this same class (at the top) makes all the rules in society, that more often then not, totally benefits the interests of that same top 10 percent?

    Is this really “economic FREEDOM [my emphasis] for all people…”?

    It is these sort of very vague political platitudes (throwing around words like “freedom”) repeated by Right leaning Libertarians (like Szasz), that have no real meaning when tested in the concrete world.

    OR should I say, they really become political justifications for continuing all the enormous inequalities in a class based “*free*market” capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Nicmart

    There is a huge difference between being tolerant of people’s right to their own spirituality, AND the existence of a highly oppressive institution. such as psychiatry. When it comes to evaluating and acting against oppressive institutions, a “live and let live” approach is a cowardly moral abandonment of principle.

    Yes, I would give kudos to Szasz for his stance on homosexuality and his related criticism of psychiatry. BUT I would hardly call his stance on the cold blooded murderer, Dan White, some sort of courageous moral high ground. This is just plain moral sensibility – 101.

    As to the so-called use of psychiatric oppression under socialism, your historical definition of countries that were indeed genuinely “socialist” would probably radically differ from mine. The Soviet Union, for example, was a “state capitalist” type regime when they used some of these oppressive means of social control.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Birdsong

    I never used the word “conspiracy,” but I do frequently use the word “collusion” to describe the relationship between Big Pharma and psychiatry.

    Psychiatry in the 1960’s (as an oft disparaged and dwindling profession) was a “would be” medical specialty in a desperate search for a “science” to justify its existence and increase its power and influence.

    What they found (and unfortunately implemented on a grand scale) was a highly oppressive and harmful “pseudo-science.” And as things evolved over the past four decades, the capitalist system (as a whole) was more than a willing participant AND beneficiary in these developments

    Any careful reading of Robert Whitaker’s several books shows clear documentation of an increasing amount of collusion (on many levels) between psychiatry and Big Pharma beginning, in the 1960’s up to the very present. And all this required the ability to work within the political realm by finding the means to manipulate, and ultimately control decisions that took place at the FDA. Just examine the game of “musical chairs” that takes place where former FDA appointees end up on the boards of Big Pharma corporations and vice versa.

    People may try, in these troubling times, to focus more on the “personal more than the political,” but this is becoming increasingly impossible to do given the mounting political polarization and the high stakes in each and every political decision being made these days. We can no longer afford to NOT to be involved in the political realm of things.

    Birdsong, just listen to the Jan. 6 hearings. The word “revolution” has been repeated many times, representing many different political agendas out there. Do we want to go forward in history to a more humane and egalitarian society, or go backwards by just maintaining the status quo, or something FAR WORSE – which is where the Right Wing wants to take us?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Szasz, would not declare himself as “anti-psychiatry,” perhaps because he was not really thoroughly opposed to the medical model, and/or did not want psychiatry to be stripped of its medical license or legitimacy as a so-called medical discipline.

    Szasz’s right wing (pro capitalist) form of libertarianism blinded him from uniting (in the 1960’s) his profoundly valuable and radical critique of aspects of the medical model with the rising anti-imperialist, Black Liberation, and rising women’s liberation movements. This was a major missed historical opportunity to advance the overall struggle against psychiatric abuse.

    Where was Szasz’s critique of Big Pharma colluding with psychiatry’s growing proliferation of psychiatric drugging and their totally corrupt way of testing (with ghost writers and manipulated data etc.)? After all, apparently everyone has a right to sell what they want, when they want, and make billions of dollars at the expense of doing enormous harm to millions of psychiatric victims.

    AND everyone apparently has a right to declare themselves a religion, even when they function in reality as a dangerous cult. AND why not work with, and unite with them against psychiatry, because (in their ‘religious” view) psychiatry competes with their same base of potential recruits. Never mind the fact, that connecting the movement against psychiatric abuse with this dangerous cult, has created enormous obstacles (including being discredited by association), which still plagues our movement to this very day.

    Szasz was a complex historical figure who made major contributions to exposing aspects of the medical model, but he also had major shortcomings that limited his ability to have a much greater impact on ending psychiatric abuse. Unfortunately today, Dr. Peter Breggin suffers from some of the same type (as Szasz) of ideological and political shortcomings that now makes him much more of a liability to our movement than an asset.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To DW and others

    Thanks for your meaningful reply and question.

    I also strongly believe we SHOULD definitely fight for reforms and incremental changes as we militantly oppose the medical model and all forms of psychiatric oppression. We cannot and should not ignore (or put off to the future) trying to help those in the present moment being harmed by psychiatry and their medical model.

    HOWEVER, there is an important strategic orientation as to how best to carry out these day to day struggles for meaningful reform and basic protection from psychiatric harm.

    The struggle for reform MUST BE part of an overall strategy for genuine revolutionary change. AND I mean not JUST revolutionary change against the medical model, but MOST DEFINITELY to the overarching economic and political system (profit based capitalism) which gave rise to, and now perpetuates and sustains the medical model.

    If we fail to link to link these two struggles we are MISLEADING and, frankly, LYING to people about what it will actually require to end all forms of psychiatric abuse and the medical model. Without this broader strategy, people will gradually become demoralized and trapped within dead end reformist approaches to change.

    This demoralization and desperate type (narrow) reformist approaches is happening as we speak. Any careful reading of MIA blogs AND the comment section over the past decade, can see the slow (but obvious) spread of political demoralization and its impact on the content of people’s activism.

    We now have MORE THAN ENOUGH credible scientists and experts AND articulate psychiatric survivors, AND published books and journal articles, THAT THOROUGHLY EXPOSES the “chemical imbalance” theory, and ALL the harm done by the DSM, psychiatric drugs, and ALL their various components of the medical model.

    YET, psychiatry and their proliferation of drugging and forced hospitalizations, and overall public indoctrination of the “chemical imbalance” theory is continuing its spread and growth in exponential ways. THE MEDICAL MODEL IS NOW STRONGER TODAY THAN EVER AND STILL GROWING – HOW IS THIS STILL POSSIBLE?

    Those people who think psychiatry’s “house of cards” will suddenly collapse when we reach a certain mass of scientific exposures and reformist activism, are unfortunately, sadly deluding themselves and others.

    We must carefully examine the growth of the medical model (psychiatry and its colluding partner – Big Pharma) over the past 4 decades, and understand how it has evolved into a vital pillar of support for preserving the capitalist system.

    Drug corporation profits (fueled by the proliferation of psych drugging) has now become an important and necessary pillar for sustaining the U.S. economy.

    As the economic and political crisis (pre-civil war type polarization and threats of outright rebellion and possible fascism) expands in the the U.S., the medical model’s “genetic theories of original sin” take on even greater importance.

    They DO NOT want people to start examining the inherent flaws within the capitalist system, with all its trauma conditions, inequalities, periodic economic crises, and inevitable drive toward inter imperialist wars and destruction of the planet’s environment.

    They DO NOT want people to understand that their various forms of psychological distress, alienation, and despair are rooted within their daily conflicts with a grossly imperfect and traumatic environment. An environment that DOESN’T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY!

    The “powers that be” benefit tremendously from having people overly focused on so-called “bad genetics” and inherent personal human flaws.

    AND most definitely, the “powers that be” benefit tremendously from having major sections of the potentially rebellious masses anesthetized by mind altering AND mind numbing psychiatric drugs.

    Over the past 4 decades, psychiatry and their medical model, has evolved to the point where its future destiny CANNOT BE SEPARATED from the future of the capitalist system. They each need the other for their existence. The capitalist ruling classes will NOT allow psychiatry to lose its current role in society nor its level of power – it’s too valuable to them. To them, we are just an “alternate reality” and an “alternate set of facts” to be relegated to the back pages of the news in their vast “marketplace of ideas.” Kept within this “vast marketplace” we are of no fundamental threat to the status quo.

    So my concluding point is as follows: We will NOT succeed in ending all forms of psychiatric abuse, or eliminate the medical model, unless we are prepared to also end the very system that sustains and perpetuates psychiatric oppression. We cannot and should not separate these two struggles – they both need to be linked together as we take on the daily struggles to help and protect potential psychiatric victims.

    There are many people who write at MIA that are aware of the connections between the medical model and capitalism. HOWEVER, they either choose, or allow themselves to be constantly sucked onto the demoralizing and dead end “path of least resistance” – a path of very pragmatic and narrow incremental change.

    Keep in mind that all this is taking place in a country that is standing on the PRECIPICE of a civil war and a quick slide into outright fascism.

    “LIFE IS A CABARET, OH CHUM, COME TO THE CABARET.””

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This interview completely misses the mark, as do most of today’s critics of the medical model. It ends up being a partial expression of the truth that will sadly go nowhere, except to an unfortunate reformist dead end.

    “You quote Richard Buckminster Fuller in your book, and he said, “You never change something by fighting the existing reality, to change something, build a new model that makes the current model obsolete.”
    How do we go about making the current model obsolete when so much power shapes and controls it?”

    My question is: why use this insightful quote of Buckminster Fuller if you’re NOT GOING TO APPLY IT TO THE CURRENT REALITY WE FACE with the oppressive medical model and the enormous power of psychiatry and Big Pharma?

    IN THIS INTERVIEW THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE MEDICAL MODEL EXISTS WITHIN, AND IS PERPETUATED BY, A PROFIT BASED CAPITALIST SYSTEM.

    The medical model and its future is now inseparably bound up in the overall future of capitalism. They now each need the other for their existence.

    The medical model shifts people’s focus away from examining the systemic flaws within capitalism, to so-called inherent genetic flaws in the human species as the basis for all human despair and oppression in the world. AND it drugs and anesthetizes those sections of the masses (who might potentially rise up against this status quo) to render them (physically and mentally) as no longer a serious threat. All the while Big Pharma makes enormous profits and psychiatry retains such enormous power over people’s lives.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • A good exposure of what is wrong and oppressive with the medical model.

    “chemical imbalances (now a discarded theory)”

    While a few psychiatric leaders have publicly disavowed the “chemical imbalance” theory, it is simply not true that this theory has been “discarded” by the medical model.

    There are still hundreds of so-called legitimate medical online websites and clinical service descriptions of “mental health treatment” facilities that repeat a version of the “chemical imbalance” theory.

    And I would rightfully speculate that the unscientific theory of so-called “chemical imbalances” is repeated literally hundreds of thousands of times every day in psychiatrist’s and clinical therapist’s offices in the U.S. and around the world.

    Promotion of the “chemical imbalance” theory is perhaps the world’s largest and most expensive (several hundred billion dollars worth of advertising) disinformation program in human history.

    All this rivals “the big lie” about who won the 2020 presidential election. So many people, including Trump himself, have repeated this lie AND SO DESPERATELY want to believe it, that IT IS NOW PERMANENTLY embedded in their consensus reality.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Mark

    What a powerful story, and such passionate and melodic music to match.

    I related to your blog as someone who worked as an LMHC clinician for 22 years in the community mental system in New Bedford, MA., and I have fought against the oppressive Medical Model of so-called “treatment” for 30 years. I have 17 blogs on related topics in the catalogue of blogs at Mad in America.

    I also related to your blog as a performing singer/songwriter who is “Making Music to Change the World.” Here is some links to two of my songs on the topic of psychiatric abuse:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmpfq0b7tLA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAEDadKFfek

    Your story about identifying with Jesus is actually quite common among people enduring extreme forms of psychological distress. Sometimes this identification with Jesus relates to an individual’s belief that their level of suffering could not possibly exist, and/or be possibly endured, unless it somehow corresponded to the level of pain and suffering endured by Jesus, himself, on the cross. In other words, “how else could God allow such extreme suffering to occur for myself, UNLESS it had some devine purpose in life on earth.”

    I say all this not as a religious person, but as someone that is trying to understand the powerful impact that a belief in an omnipotent spiritual entity can have, along with the negative impact that a belief in “original sin” can have on people living in a traumatic world. After all, this is the same world where psychiatry promotes multiple “genetic theories of original sin” in their oppressive DSM “bible.

    And I loved your story in the song “Icarus Reprise” where the character “Daedalus stands outside the bedroom door singing to his son, being honest, compassionate, and giving him advice and hope.”

    This reminds of some of the work I used to do with EMDR therapy for trauma. It was always a significant sign of progress for a person when they achieved some sort of “distance” from their trauma history, when they would experience mental images of themselves “observing” or looking through a screen at themselves when they were a child, and at the same time experiencing strong feelings of compassion for what that child had to endure. This always represented an important step in overcoming the toxic feelings of “guilt and shame” that many victims of childhood abuse still feel within themselves as adults.

    Mark, I did check out your website and will reach out to you via email. I currently live an hour south of Boston, and perhaps we can meet up in the future and share some music. I do know some people that run some songwriters in the round at some local venues, perhaps that might be a good place to rendezvous.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • Eric

    Yes, this sentence is pointing to the importance of environmental and solution focused factors in overcoming depression and sadness.

    BUT, we must also point out that in today’s trauma ridden and exploitative world, sadness and depression are normal reactions to difficult circumstances. And how a person eventually responds to these circumstances (without being drugged!) can potentially teach that person valuable lessons for how to survive in the future.

    HOWEVER, that sentence in which you chose to praise is also riddled with some of the worst and most oppressive language in the Medical Model’s arsenal – “diagnosis and treatment of individual diseases.”

    There is NO scientific evidence that these problems are actual “diseases.” And there is tons of evidence in the backlog of MIA articles over the years detailing just how harmful a psychiatric “diagnosis” can be to the self identity formation of a human being.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To clarify my above comment, I do not mean to be dismissive of all of Dr Fava’s research and critical writings on psychiatric drugs. I have praised some of his past writings and believe he is one of the few psychiatrists today that is raising serious criticisms of the psychiatric profession.

    However, my above comment is meant to show how even the “critical psychiatry” adherents sometimes lapse into the same speculative pseudoscience that they often criticize.

    I am sure there is plenty of cognitive dissonance and defensiveness for today’s “critical psychiatrists” when it comes contemplating the elimination of psychiatry as a genuine and legitimate medical specialty.

    Until psychiatry finally disappears (through enormous political struggle), “critical psychiatrists” can seize the moral high ground by raising holy hell within their profession and helping the millions of psychiatric victims get off their harmful drugs and/or dramatically reduce their reliance on these substances.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “Helping patients to overcome their difficulties requires excellent skills in differential diagnosis; deep knowledge not only of the potential benefits of treatments (ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS REMAIN LIFE-SAVING MEDICATIONS IN SEVERE DEPRESSION [emphasis added]), but also of their vulnerabilities; and awareness of the advances in psychotherapy that enable self-therapy.”

    In this blog Dr. Giovanni Fava wonders why we don’t have the science and commitment by today’s Medical Model to help people get OFF of antidepressant drugs. Well, he needs to look no further than his OWN failure of rigorous scientific consistency when it comes to Big Pharma and psychiatry’s myth about the so-called “benefits” of these drugs.

    Where is the scientific evidence, after more than 3 decades of prolific prescribing of hundreds of millions of prescriptions for SSRI drugs, that they are in truth, “LIFE-SAVING MEDICATIONS?”

    The collusion between Big Pharma and psychiatry (with their world’s largest and most expensive PR campaign in human history on the “benefits” of psychiatric drugs) is nothing but pure speculation and wishful thinking. MIA has published dozens and dozens of scientific analyses of drug studies over the past several years refuting the MYTH of the so-called “benefits” of these drugs.

    Dr. Fava ends his blog by saying, “We have serious problems and we need a different psychiatry.”

    Yes, I agree we do have serious problems in a capitalist world that turns literally everything and everyone into a commodity (to be bought and sold) for the almighty bottom line of profit. BUT I SAY, we DON’T need “a different psychiatry,” – we need NO PSYCHIATRY and a new economic and political system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I am glad someone has taken the time to summarize the important parts of Joanna Mongrieff’s recent blog. I will repeat the same comment I wrote at that time.

    “This blog is a very good overview of the history and the role of the “mental health” system in a Neoliberal capitalist world.

    BUT it does lack the necessary urgency needed to understand and respond to the current intensity of world contradictions within these systems that is placing the planet in great peril.

    And we must emphasize that this world is based on (and cannot exist without) the fundamental underlying principle of *exploitation* that is inherent within a class based capitalist society. AND this *exploitation* leads to ALL SORTS of stressors and forms of trauma that push humanity and the human mind to very extreme forms of psychological distress.

    This psychological distress is “medicalized” (and drugged) by psychiatry and Big Pharma in order to serve the larger power structure’s need to control and contain ANY form of disruption and dissent within the larger social order.

    The proliferation of psych drugging of the broader population, and the incarceration of “malcontents” within psychiatric prisons, has now become an absolute NECESSITY within today’s capitalist societies for its future survival. AND the high profit margins and growth of Big Pharma’s psych drug industry has also become an essential feature within the stabilization and growth of today’s capitalist economy.

    In today’s world the future of psychiatry (and their entire Medical Model), and the continuation of a class based capitalist system have an inseparable destiny. They are both totally interdependent, and CANNOT exist, OR continue on the planet without the other.

    All this has VERY important implications when developing strategies for trying to end all forms of psychiatric abuse in the world.

    It is essential when analyzing all the problems within the “mental health” system to make the very DIRECT connections the Medical Model has to the very existence of capitalism and imperialism in the world.

    To NOT do this, is to promote the ILLUSION that somehow we can reform psychiatry and their Medical Model, and we can also make “adjustments” to capitalism whereby it will magically become something it can never ever be – a fair and just society. You CANNOT ask (or expect) Dracula to suck water or some other liquid besides blood; he WILL NOT, and CANNOT exist without blood.

    With bourgeois democracies in the world facing imminent threats, along with the dire existential threat of climate collapse and inter imperialist nuclear world war, it is BEYOND THE TIME, when we must reevaluate alternatives to the class based capitalist systems of social organizations that will NO LONGER work (or exist much longer) on this planet.

    The first socialist experiments on this planet, which only lasted a mere 5-6 decades at best, MUST BE *reimagined* by summing up past shortcomings and mistakes. If we we fail to make these efforts, then the entire planet is doomed to destroy itself.

    Human nature has much greater diversity and potential than “dog eat dog” and “look out for number one.” This is the human nature taught and nurtured within class based capitalist societies.

    Human beings also have the capacity for high levels of cooperation and human compassion for others. Doesn’t the Russian invasion of Ukraine reveal to us both extremes of human nature? It is imperative for us to find the type of environment (and related societal structures) that allow the very best form of human nature to flourish and thrive in the world.

    Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win! Richard”

    Report comment

  • Karin

    Great blog – a truly powerful story of recovery from psychiatry and their oppressive Medical Model. Yes, the language in the “Song of Psychiatry” does severely oppress people, but the language of other songs can point towards struggle and liberation.

    I hope you consider these two songs as representing the important struggle of overcoming psychiatric oppression: (“How Long a Time”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmpfq0b7tLA and (“Benzo Blue”) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYuhNEn2OKw

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This was a very good interview on a very important social justice topic.

    I have great admiration for the hard work and dedication Sonja Styblo gives to the psychiatric survivor movement.

    And to Tim McCarthy,Gianna D’Ambrozio, Sonja Styblo and others – here is a link to an entire blog I wrote at MIA on the issue of the intersection of benzo dependency and addiction, called “Bridging the Benzo Divide: Iatrogenic Dependency and/or Addiction?” https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/bridging-the-benzo-divide-iatrogenic-dependence-andor-addiction/

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This blog is a very good overview of the history and the role of the “mental health” system in a Neoliberal capitalist world.

    BUT it does lack the necessary urgency needed to understand and respond to the current intensity of world contradictions within these systems that is placing the planet in great peril.

    And we must emphasize that this world is based on (and cannot exist without) the fundamental underlying principle of *exploitation* that is inherent within a class based capitalist society. AND this *exploitation* leads to ALL SORTS of stressors and forms of trauma that push humanity and the human mind to very extreme forms of psychological distress.

    This psychological distress is “medicalized” (and drugged) by psychiatry and Big Pharma in order to serve the larger power structure’s need to control and contain ANY form of disruption and dissent within the larger social order.

    The proliferation of psych drugging of the broader population, and the incarceration of “malcontents” within psychiatric prisons, has now become an absolute NECESSITY within today’s capitalist societies for its future survival. AND the high profit margins and growth of Big Pharma’s psych drug industry has also become an essential feature within the stabilization and growth of today’s capitalist economy.

    In today’s world the future of psychiatry (and their entire Medical Model), and the continuation of a class based capitalist system have an inseparable destiny. They are both totally interdependent, and CANNOT exist, OR continue on the planet without the other.

    All this has VERY important implications when developing strategies for trying to end all forms of psychiatric abuse in the world.

    It is essential when analyzing all the problems within the “mental health” system to make the very DIRECT connections the Medical Model has to the very existence of capitalism and imperialism in the world.

    To NOT do this, is to promote the ILLUSION that somehow we can reform psychiatry and their Medical Model, and we can also make “adjustments” to capitalism whereby it will magically become something it can never ever be – a fair and just society. You CANNOT ask (or expect) Dracula to suck water or some other liquid besides blood; he WILL NOT, and CANNOT exist without blood.

    With bourgeois democracies in the world facing imminent threats, along with the dire existential threat of climate collapse and inter imperialist nuclear world war, it is BEYOND THE TIME, when we must reevaluate alternatives to the class based capitalist systems of social organizations that will NO LONGER work (or exist much longer) on this planet.

    The first socialist experiments on this planet, which only lasted a mere 5-6 decades at best, MUST BE *reimagined* by summing up past shortcomings and mistakes. If we we fail to make these efforts, then the entire planet is doomed to destroy itself.

    Human nature has much greater diversity and potential than “dog eat dog” and “look out for number one.” This is the human nature taught and nurtured within class based capitalist societies.

    Human beings also have the capacity for high levels of cooperation and human compassion for others. Doesn’t the Russian invasion of Ukraine reveal to us both extremes of human nature? It is imperative for us to find the type of environment (and related societal structures) that allow the very best form of human nature to flourish and thrive in the world.

    Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win! Richard

    Report comment

  • “Capitalism, hand in hand with democracy, is the only logical way forward as flawed as it is.”

    This statement above by Jack Murphy seems to represent the views of several writers, including Steve McCrea, here in this comment section.

    So much criticism and angst focused on a system of economic and social organization (socialism), that currently exists NOWHERE on the planet.

    In fact, a genuine socialist state has NOT existed on this planet since China in 1977 – ending after ONLY 3 DECADES OF EXISTENCE. BTW, the average lifespan of a Chinese citizen doubled (from 35 to 70 years) during that same period.

    AND the Russian revolution only legitimately lasted for little over 3 decades on this planet – 1918 to the early 1950’s.

    Where the HELL are people’s political priorities of criticism and human angst??? I am totally amazed at such MISDIRECTION of compassionate attention of importance!

    The fact that this planet is on the verge of total climate destruction AND possible inter imperialist nuclear war (by competing capitalist nation states), has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with socialism and communism – AND EVERYTHING to do with the current dominant capitalist form of social organization!!!

    So counting the years of the two socialist revolutions – socialism has only been tried on the planet earth for a mere 60 years of experimental practice.

    Where are people’s priorities? Is it not the Right Wing extremist’s ideology and talking points that wants people to focus on the “communist bogeyman,” and NOT on the realities of the inequalities and injustices that pervade modern capitalist societies.???

    Steve says: “Marxism as practiced has been a disaster…communism in practice was a total failure”

    Is this not an example of an “absolutist,” and rather undialectical historical evaluation of only little over 60 years of socialist practice on the planet? A mere tiny spec of time in the development of various forms of human organization.

    Would this viewpoint not be the equivalent of declaring heart transplants a FAILURE in 1967 because the first heart recipient only ended up living for 18 days?

    Look how far the science and the practice of heart transplants has progressed since the earliest experiments. Fortunately, some doctors and medical ethicists did not give up on these heart experiments despite “trial and errors,” AND much criticism heaped upon them at the time.

    Similar to a human transplanted heart that is surrounded by cellular activity that wants the body to TOTALLY REJECT the new organ, the conditions that existed for the new emerging socialist states in the world (first Russia then China) WERE QUITE SIMILAR IN NATURE.

    This enormous amount of economic, political, and military HOSTILITY that surrounded the experimental socialist states, combined with internal mistakes trying to create something new and innovative on the planet (like heart transplants), had EVERYTHING to do with why these efforts for a brand new form of social organization were unable to succeed.

    Steve says:
    ” Humans need to feel like they are competing in some way, that their individual efforts make a difference. They don’t do very well working for “the good of the collective,”…”

    Here we see the oft repeated argument that “it’s human nature” that is the problem with why socialist type cooperation cannot work in the world.

    Human nature is NOT a fixed entity, but is quite malleable under different environmental conditions. Human empathy, compassion and cooperation is just as prevalent on this planet as is competition, violence towards others, and selfishness.

    What is THE environment of social organization that is most likely to produce (and let flourish) human cooperation and compassion for others?

    Must I remind Steve and others in this comment section, that for many THOUSANDS of years of social organization (in primitive communal tribal societies) HUMAN COOPERATION WAS BOTH A NECESSITY AND THE COMMON PRACTICE OF SOCIAL EXISTENCE FOR SURVIVAL PURPOSES.

    Human groupings that FAILED to practice this form of cooperation would soon go out of existence.

    YES, (many of you are saying), these forms of “cooperation” based societies were practiced mainly out of NECESSITY (a forced choice, if you will), BUT what then took place when excesses were able to be produced within human society and we had the formation of classes. Now (you say) there were power struggles among those who wanted to CONTROL AND OWN the excesses of goods (food, products, livestock etc.)

    Yes, this is all true, and it was a contributing factor to the ultimate development (following feudalism) of early capitalist forms of economic and political structure.

    BUT NONE OF THIS, explains why it is not possible for human beings to combine that same early sense of NECESSITY (for existence) with the FREEDOM OF INTELLECTUAL AND HISTORICAL CHOICE now that we have the knowledge to solve the problems of production and construction of all the necessities of life AND the means to distribute them equitably on ONE PLANET.

    Soon more people on the planet will begin to realize that if WE DON’T begin to combine a NECESSITY of both human NEED AND CHOICE., then the entire planet CANNOT AND WILL NOT survive.

    Many people here are stuck in an intellectual box of simplistic and cliched explanations (after decades of political brainwashing) of why capitalism must be the highest pinnacle of human organization.

    Folks, it’s NOT WORKING! The planet is dying, and it’s time to explore political options and choices OUTSIDE the box of Neo-Liberal corporate capitalism.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bradford said:
    “Bruce Levine is either not being intellectually honest here, or perhaps too glib. Psychiatry doesn’t exist as it is today because it’s boring. It exists as it does today, because it makes money selling drugs to people society finds annoying or inconvenient, thereby helping solve, or at least abate, situations and people that society would rather not have to deal with….”

    Bradford and I often disagree on many subjects, but I think he is absolutely right to challenge Bruce Levine on his “boring” analysis of modern psychiatry. In fact, many of Bruce’s past blogs have provided some of the explanation for why many “critical thinkers” don’t intellectually take apart the entire oppressive Medical Model.

    Psychiatry is never “boring” to those suffering from its to multiple forms of labeling, drugging, and incarceration.

    And “critical thinkers,” from liberals to more genuine leftists and other social justice fighters who advocate for the causes of oppressed people in the world, have been overall fooled by a four decade long (highly sophisticated) PR campaign costing over several hundred billions of dollars.

    Many of these same people would still repeat the “chemical imbalance” myth, which continues to inundate all sorts of medical and “mental health” websites and medical texts. The genetic theories of “original sin” (and related DSM diagnoses) regarding various types of extreme forms of psychological distress, are still accepted by many “critical thinkers” who should know better.

    AND these same type of people (often with well meaning compassion) will eagerly support increased funding (as a knee jerk like reaction) for more “mental health” services to address the rapid rise in anxiety and depression in today’s world. They will support these measures WITHOUT doing any serious evaluation of the same status quo Medical Model that causes far more HARM than good.

    The ruling classes and their minions, and all the other fellow travelers of oppressive power mongering, know VERY WELL the value of psychiatry and their entire Medical Model in maintaining social control and class oppression. AND they have spent accordingly (to its value) on their several hundred billion dollar PR campaign, that (so far) must be declared a major success for our enemies.

    Bruce, you have gotten so many things right in your blog (and other writings), but you did miss the mark with that comment.

    It is up to us to continue to search for creative ways to break through the intellectual AND ACTIVIST log jam that seems to paralyze and fool most “critical thinkers” and social justice activists. There is much work to be done.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “Szasz was a Libertarian, not a Capitalist”

    Szasz’s brand of Right Wing Libertarianism is the total personification of Neo-liberal individualism and defense of the capitalist “free market” system.

    And this represents the ultimate defense of both class privilege and social injustice (or at the very least, ignoring and/or turning away from acknowledging such injustice).

    Richard

    Report comment

  • rebel says:
    “To link anti- psychiatry with the particular groups mentioned is to link the anti-psychiatry movement with marxism, etc. Psychiatry is a tool of control as is marxism, etc. With all due respect, it is only legitimate for anti-psychiatry to be linked with a more libertarian point of view. I do not mean to be blunt.”

    I say: since when are all social justice movements, including those fighting against climate destruction and inter imperialist war – “Marxist?”

    This sounds like a ‘talking point” currently repeated over and over again by Right Wing Republicans and others of that ilk, in order to reject and smear all social justice type movements.

    There are no facts to back up this statement. Yes, there are people who label themselves “Marxist” involved in these movement, but the VAST MAJORITY are of many other different political persuasions, or people who currently remain undefined.

    I only WISH there were as many true “Marxists” out there as you seem to imply.

    “Marxism” is not “a tool of control,” but rather, an ideology that deeply analyzes the history of oppressive class based societies and charts a path for humanity toward a more eqalitarian societal structure (socialism leading to communism), that ultimately leads to a “stateless” and class free world.

    There is NOTHING inherent in Marxist ideology that advocates for “social control” other than controlling and preventing some people in society from exploiting other human beings.

    Marxist ideology AND practice in the world is about 150 years young. Just because its prior experiments were defeated and/or failed (with mistakes being made), DOES NOT negate the essence and value of Marxist ideology as a liberating force in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Great blog which raises many important questions.

    Yes, Szasz made enormous contributions to dissecting and dismantling the foundational thinking that props up the oppressive institution of psychiatry, and also for his opposition to all forms of forced “treatment.”

    Unfortunately, Szasz also pissed away major opportunities in the 1960’s to advance the overall struggle against psychiatric oppression, by failing to link his incisive exposure of psychiatry to the rising struggle against U.S. imperialist war, the Black Liberation movement, and the rising women’s movement.There are common threads of social control, class oppression, and the insatiable drive for capitalist profit embedded within the underlying causes for these forms of oppression.

    Szasz’s embrace of the standard form of Right Wing Libertarianism created huge blind spots that crippled his ability to carry some of his thinking about psychiatric oppression to a more revolutionary place, both ideologically, and especially for organizing and inspiring political activism as part of the rising wave of activism in 60’s.

    Szasz’s brand of Libertarianism leads to a form of hyper individualism that is running rampant in today’s society, and remains part of the underpinnings of the anti-vax and anti-mask movements that ignore legitimate science and completely pervert what it means to fight for *freedom.*

    The Szasz quote used above encapsulates some of this faulty libertarian thinking:
    “Anybody who wants to go to a psychiatrist is fine. Anyone who wants to take psychiat­ric drugs is fine with me… I am for freedom and responsibility.”

    His last sentence about being for “freedom and responsibility” totally contradicts his laissez-faire view towards people’s “choice” to engage with psychiatry and take their drugs. It’s NOT OK that the institution of psychiatry exists in this society to do all their dirty work, and be allowed to push their drugs on vulnerable people. Where was Szasz’s critique of the massive and corrupt collusion between psychiatry and Big Pharma in their promotion of DSM diagnoses and the enormous proliferation of psych drugging??? I guess Big Pharma should be “free” to make money and drugs however they choose.

    And what would Szasz say about the sweetheart deal (and lack of criminal consequences) that the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma have gotten away with for the negligent deaths of more 500 thousand deaths related to the opiate epidemic?

    Because Szasz had no problem with the capitalist system, he couldn’t see (or perhaps he didn’t care) that psychiatry was becoming more and more of a necessary tool for social control of the most volatile (and potentially revolutionary) sections of U.S. society. The future of both entities (capitalism and psychiatry) are now historically intertwined in a symbiotic relationship of mutual need – one can’t exist without the other, AND their final destinies cannot be separated.

    The other Szasz quote: “The libertarian philosophy of freedom is characterized by two fundamental beliefs: the right to be left alone and the duty to leave others alone.” This represents a prime example of the type of philosophy that embraces the “privilege” and tolerance of “injustice” that Bakunin called out in his criticism of Libertarianism.

    The current movement against all forms of psychiatric oppression MUST be linked to all the other powerful social movements for social justice AND for the survival of the planet against climate destruction and inter imperialist war. Any viable critique of psychiatry (as an oppressive institution) cannot be separated from a very much related critique of all that is wrong with a profit based capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Phil
    Great pair of blogs as usual.

    I had the same confusion and issue as Louisa with one of your uses of the term “mental illnesses.”

    In your comment you said the following:

    “So when we encounter a problem in thinking, feeling, or executive functioning, that has clearly been caused by brain injury, it is important to acknowledge this. During my career (I’m now retired), I worked in a number of nursing homes. Most of the people there were elderly, but there were also young people who had incurred brain damage, either from trauma or from illnesses (infections, etc.), and whose mental processes (thinking, feeling, and behaving) were markedly impaired. It seemed obvious to me that the brain damage was the cause of the impairment in mental processes.”

    Yes. I agree we should acknowledge that various forms of temporary or permanent brain injuries can cause problems in the realm of human feeling, thinking, and/or behavior.

    BUT, I think we should avoid the term “mental illness” to describe this phenomena for two reasons: 1) The term is too loaded and corrupted in meaning because of the many decades of use by psychiatry and their bogus Medical Model. 2) It is not clear that the “illness” part accurately describes what is actually occurring within a person suffering from certain forms of brain damage or impairment.

    “A disruption, disturbance, and/or distortion of mental processes and resulting behavior” might be a far better phrasing which allows us to avoid any of the terrible confusion and oppressive associations with psychiatry’s Medical Model language, and the harmful “treatment” that follows their unscientific “mental illness” labels.

    And I believe that a doctor with a neurologist’s credentials, perhaps assisted by a good therapist, could provide the necessary help for someone whose mental processes have been perturbed by some form of brain damage or injury.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • James, thanks for this great interview on a vitally important subject matter.

    Johann Hari has a brilliant mind, and the ability to penetrate well beneath the surface with very important cultural critiques of the degeneracy of modern capitalist society.

    Throughout this interview there are numerous references made to the role of profit (as an out of control entity) in the marketplace driving the tech companies and their CEOs to promote and develop technology for numerous forms of social control.

    AND we also know that profit and social control are the driving forces behind all forms of psychiatric abuse and oppression. Psychiatry (in collusion with Big Pharma) and their entire medical Model of so-called “treatment,” are just too important to the preservation of the capitalist system to be allowed to fail. Their future destinies are now totally interdependent.

    The “elephant in the room” question never really addressed in this interview (I have not read Hari’s new book, “Stolen Focus”) is as follows:

    Can any of these deeply disturbing problems facing society be solved WITHOUT ending the profit based capitalist system, and moving humanity on to a newly imagined form of socialism?

    We keep reading more and more critiques of the harm done by the role of PROFIT corrupting every aspect of our society, especially the moral choices and decisions made by those people in key positions of power and control.

    Is it really possible to REFORM capitalism and somehow place societal restrictions on all forms of exploitation?

    OR is exploitation (no matter how much you try to restrict it) inherently and forever a part of the genetic DNA of capitalism – something that will eventually and ultimately corrupt human intent, even when some people make enormous efforts to prevent this from happening?

    Can this planet and the human race survive another 100 years of class rule, and a profit based capitalist system?

    Anyone who has read many of my past blogs and comments at MIA, know my answer to these questions is a resounding – HELL NO!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lisa

    Thanks for sharing this incredibly powerful story of psychiatric abuse.

    You were such a compassionate ally of Kathleen, and you have so deeply honored her life by sharing her account of the horrors that the so-called Medical Model of “treatment” can cause for it victims.

    Kathleen Fliller’s story should be REQUIRED READING for anyone coming anywhere near another human being in the so-called “mental health” system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • James

    This was a very educational and thought provoking interview, AND I (as an anti-psychiatry activist) have much respect for Giovanni Fava as a doctor doing such serious and important work helping people recover from iatrogenic damage done by psychiatry and their Medical Model of so-called “treatment.” And Dr. Fava’s book sounds like an important book for many reasons, including its exposure of psychiatry’s current crimes prescribing harmful drugs and “gaslighting” its victims.

    I was really pleased to read the analysis of anti-depressant drug toxicity after a period of time on the drugs, and the cascade of negative consequences that can follow these prescriptions.

    Important questions, concerns and comments about the interview:

    1) The assessment of the role of benzodiazepines in treating anxiety and anti-depressant withdrawal was seriously lacking in some important analysis and overall warnings about dependency issues.

    2) The interview left the impression that (as opposed to other benzos) clonazapem – klonopin was both safe and effective. While I am not totally opposed to ever using benzos in such cases (I know Dr. Shipko also advocates their use) I DO NOT believe it is helpful to leave the impression that clonazapem is without serious risks. We know that there have been millions of people who have suffered from klonopin dependency – just ask Stevie Nicks.

    3) How long does Dr.Fava advocate the use of clonazepam? AND then, how soon, and for how long does he recommend for a period of withdrawal?

    4) Dr. Fava seems to imply that psychiatry could have a prosperous future if it would somehow shift to a more educated psychopharmacology with less use of drugs, combined with psychotherapy.

    5) Under a profit based capitalist system the Medical Model cannot, and WILL NOT, make any fundamental changes in its oppressive “treatment” model. Psychiatry has become far too valuable in maintaining the status quo by reinforcing the belief that human angst and psychological disturbance is genetically based. AND the sedative drugging (and incarceration) of key sections of a potentially rebellious society, helps to stave off future uprisings that could overturn the “powers that be.”

    6) Dissident psychiatrists like Dr. Fava could play a VERY positive role for many decades helping millions of victims get off of toxic psychiatric drugs and exposing their potential dangers.
    AND dissident psychiatrists could also play and important role shaking up and exposing the psychiatric establishment and their collusion with Big Pharma.

    7) But, as a medical specialty (in the long term) psychiatry needs to be abolished. It remains, overall, a very oppressive institution that does far more harm than good. There is no legitimate science to justify its existence as a medical specialty. Some of these doctors will have to shift over to either neurology (a legitimate science of brain functioning) or client centered therapy.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JanCarol

    I respect your history as a psychiatric survivor and your overall condemnation of the crimes of Big Pharma, especially as it pertains to the promotion of psych drugs and the related harm done to millions of people.

    You said: “It stuns me that anyone who has survived neuroleptics, benzos and “antidespressants” could accept anything Pharma says at face value.”

    Who here in these discussions about the medical benefits of Covid vaccines has accepted the words of Big Pharma “at face value”? I have not, AND do not, accept the words of Big Pharma “at face value.”

    First off, in the entire history of Big Pharma’s development of all types of medically used drugs in the world, what percentage of these drugs have overall been very helpful to humanity, AND what percentage have been harmful?

    Do you deny that SOME of these drug creations have saved lives and are positive ways to manage certain diseases and other serious medical problems facing humanity?

    Yes, it is reasonable and responsible in today’s world to have enormous skepticism about what drugs Big Pharma creates given their underlying drive for profits and unholy track record. BUT, unfortunately, we all must do our OWN research and evaluation to determine what is potentially dangerous, AND what is truly helpful in treating a dangerous virus or other medical problems.

    Back in 1995, I decided to take a highly toxic chemo drug (recommended by oncologists) to treat a particular form of testicular cancer. If I had not taken that drug, I most likely would NOT BE HERE today to write this comment.

    Did some drug company make money off of producing this drug? YES, but there are medical researchers and scientists who actually create things (and do so for the right reasons) that truly benefit humanity. The fact that the pharmaceutical industry makes money off of these drugs is an important, but separate question regarding their value as necessary medicines.

    You said: “The mandates that Richard speaks so highly of – are of a product which is leaky and short acting, at best, and provides temporary benefit which expires after about 6-8 months.”

    I still say, that despite the high profits accruing from Covid vaccines for Big Pharma, the legitimate scientific evidence indicates they are safe and effective. The people who are currently dying from Covid are the unvaccinated. AND there is increasing evidence that those who have recovered from Covid (even mild cases) can have long term negative medical consequences.

    A key consideration in all of these issues about Covid vaccines is the fact that the risk of death and serious disease process effects ALL classes of people. Some of our biggest enemies in the world all have the SAME fundamental desire to stay alive. Big Pharma CEO’s and their families, are ALL taking the Covid vaccines, and for good reason.

    When it comes to evaluating both the harm AND benefits of Western medicine, we must avoid “black and white” or other dismissive approaches to these questions; it could have life or death consequences for some people.

    Yes, it is truly sad that in today’s world we ALL must be “citizen scientists” and independent thinkers, because it is not safe to trust our government and large institutions, like the medical establishment. But for now we must sort out the reality, and the fact, that occasionally they say something that is true, and that should be followed for our survival and best interests as a species.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • yinyang

    For your information, I am also against forced drugging in ALL circumstances, and that includes for any kind of drug, psychiatric or vaccines. And as far as I know there has only been a few examples of forced drugging with the Covid vaccines; this may have happened in some prisons.

    However, I am NOT opposed to vaccine “mandates,” which is completely different This is clearly a situation where someone’s personal rights are superseded by the SOCIAL RIGHTS and RESPONSIBILITIES of the broader society. If someone wants to work in a hospital, then they must comply with the mandate and NOT put others they are treating in that environment at risk of being harmed by Covid 19.

    If someone decides NOT to be vaccinated (which should be their right), then they should live isolated from making contact with any significant percentage of other human beings. This is a fair social requirement irrespective of anyone’s political evaluation of the overall political and economic fairness of the larger institutions.

    In other words, I am a huge critic of the U.S. imperialist empire (and seek its replacement with socialism), but I accept vaccine mandates because it is currently in the BEST interests of ALL classes in our society for health and survival.

    If someone chooses to live in a community and other larger gatherings of human beings, then the social rights and responsibilities of the larger group take precedent over individual rights, especially when it involves major issues of health and human survival for a significant section of the population.

    You may be correct that Covid 19 does not threaten the actual survival of our entire species, BUT it clearly threatens the life (and long term health) of a significant section of people who can have certain levels of vulnerability to the disease. The rising figure, which is currently at 700 thousand deaths for this country, is factual proof of this danger.

    As to your statement; “…the “vaccines” obviously don’t work…”, this is simply NOT TRUE by any fair scientific evaluation. I don’t think anyone would define “work” as meaning total prevention of contracting the Covid disease.

    The vaccines clearly, by ANY VALID statistical measure, prevent serious disease, AND most importantly, prevents death from Covid almost 100% of the time. By this measure, Covid vaccines clearly “work.”

    Two thousand people in the U.S. are still dying everyday, and they are almost 100% the unvaccinated members of our society. And this now includes a growing percentage of younger members of society, and not just those over 65 or in poor health.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This represents a big loss to the psychiatric survivor movement. Chyrs was a tenacious fighter against all forms of psychiatric abuse, and a personality brimming with the very best qualities of humanity – she will be sorely missed.

    My wife and I had the privilege to meet and talk with Chyrs for a few hours in 2013. Our scheduled rendezvous took place at the Redhall Walled Garden on the outskirts of Edinburgh Scotland during a traveling excursion.

    I wrote a blog posting for MIA here: https:(//www.madinamerica.com/2013/09/mad-america-meets-mad-scotland/) that details this wonderful encounter at an outdoor support center for people dealing with extreme forms of psychological distress.

    My condolences to her family and all those who knew her.

    Long Live the Spirit of Chrys Muirhead!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “Why shouldn’t we see the vaccine rollout as following the same pattern as the one used for psych drugs?”

    There are very simple and important answers to your question.

    Covid 19 is a real “disease” by any genuine scientific analysis at the cellular level of the human body.

    Psychiatric disorders are made up by a committee with a show of hands, and reflect no scientific evidence of an actual “disease” process within the human body.

    Covid 19 vaccines are highly effective (one of most successful vaccines in human history) and mitigate the serious progression of the Covid disease itself, AND almost 100% guarantee the survival of those contracting the disease. AND the vaccines have proven to be extremely safe, with very few side effects of any consequence.

    Psychiatric drugs may provide SHORT TERM reduction of certain uncomfortable feelings for some people, but are highly toxic substances to the human body and brain, and can create severe disturbances in brain (and body) functioning for many years, even after stopping their use. There is NO reliable scientific evidence that they actually work in the ways they are falsely advertised. Overall, the main effects (and side effects) of these drugs cause FAR MORE harm than good in the world.

    While both the Covid 19 vaccines and psychiatric drugs make enormous profits for the pharmaceutical companies, there is an important and fundamental difference between the two.

    Covid 19 represents a serious existential threat to the survival of our species (as opposed to the myth of “mental illness”) that cuts across ALL class divisions in human society. The Big Pharma CEO’s (and their families) need the Covid vaccines for their survival just as much as the poorest sections of people on the bottom rungs of society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To Bob and others

    RW says:
    “As for whether the root source of the problem is capitalism, the problem is that there isn’t a regulatory requirement for honest, independent trials….It could still be possible to have a capitalistic system that required independent testing of new drugs, and didn’t reward psychiatrists and other “experts” for shilling for the drugs.”

    Any serious examination of how a class based capitalist system functions in the real world screams that this type of reform (leading to a fundamental change) is virtually impossible.

    Just look at the efforts in this country to eliminate and control “monopolies” in the corporate world. This has never been accomplished, AND never will.

    And then read this article about how the stock market is rigged with endless, and virtually UNSTOPPABLE, forms of “insider trading” (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-09-29/is-stock-market-rigged-insider-trading-by-executives-is-pervasive-critics-say?utm_source=pocket-newtab).

    The people that make the rules and control ALL of the essential instruments of power in this society are from the upper classes. As long as classes exist, people will ultimately find the ways to maintain their privilege and financial advantage – this is an ABSOLUTE LAW flowing from the very nature of “capital” itself. That is, always seeking the highest rate of profit through its internal nature of “expand or die.”

    Human beings that function within such a capitalist system, and view their survival within these parameters, merely become instruments of these economic laws related to the existence of “capital” itself.

    Even well meaning people who struggle to behave with a higher set of moral standards, will be pulled in this direction like a “moth to the flame.”

    In other words, there can be NO completely “independent” evaluators found within such a profit based system to uphold the true interests of the masses. Those people who do struggle to actually be “independent” and uphold the true safety interests of the masses, will never be allowed to be placed in these positions of power and evaluation.

    AND if someone (with high standards of legitimate science and fairness) were somehow able to be in such a position of regulatory power, they would NOT last long. They will be isolated and ultimately eliminated. Just look at what happen to Peter Gotzsche from the Cochrane Collaborative. This is standard practice within a capitalist system, and we should not be surprised when this happens.

    This is NOT cynicism or negativity on my part, but I believe an accurate evaluation of the inner workings of the capitalist system in a class based society.

    This does not mean we shouldn’t fight for reform, but it needs to be done as part of a LARGER STRATEGY of seeking to move beyond a class based capitalist system.

    Given the current level of polarization, and the danger in this country of a fascist takeover, to still promote “reform” as a central strategy, is to promote potentially dangerous illusions and waste valuable time in our political activism for change.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Someone Else

    You said: “Capitalism may work just fine, if our government officials actually did their jobs, instead of being bought out, and doing the opposite.”

    Government officials are almost always from the upper classes who are imbued with the belief in the “survival of the fittest” and “look out for number one” mentality that pervades modern capitalist society.

    Anyone in government who tries to go against the interests of the capitalist class of oligarchs will eventually be isolated and somehow neutralized.

    The profit motive ultimately corrupts every nook and cranny of human society.

    We have been indoctrinated to believe that capitalism and its ideology corresponds with true “human nature.”

    Nothing could be further from the truth. Human nature is very malleable and will flourish with cooperation and invention when societal structures are built on a foundation of equality where classes and the profit motive are systematically eliminated over a period of time.

    In today’s society there are NO CONSEQUENCES (except perhaps a “fine”) for corruption that leads to human casualties. Look no further than the recent settlement “against” Purdue Pharma and the corporate CEOs responsible for half a million deaths with the opiate epidemic. They get to pay a “fine” and keep their billions WITHOUT spending a single day in jail. What a country! and what a justice system!!!!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob, thanks for another uncompromising and well researched exposure of the totally corrupt nature of Big Pharma, and their promotion and sales of dangerous psychiatric drugs.

    How can anyone read this and not be outraged and sickened by the current state of psychiatry and their total collusion with Big Pharma?

    I hope such exposures keep being written and circulated throughout society. I believe this kind of reporting could help create new activists who will fight for much needed change in the future.

    HOWEVER, there are much more important conclusions to draw from these types of political exposures, beyond the fact that scientific research is consciously being corrupted by the role of money payoffs and the related high profit margins of the pharmaceutical industry.

    Here we are talking about corruption that is now practiced OPENLY “in the light of day” (with all the dirty deeds being published in various places online), and people like Robert Whitaker (RW) are ALLOWED to actually publish these devastating political exposures, AND circulate them in the VAST “marketplace of ideas.” NOW WHAT!!!

    ‘Business as usual” just continues and continues, with not even a hint of fundamental change on the horizon. RW’s scientific and political writings, and all the other great exposures written by “Critical Psychiatry” and “anti-psychiatry,” end up getting lost and swallowed up within this increasingly VAST “marketplace of ideas,” and treated as just another set of “alternative facts” among the other more powerful “alternative realities” touting all the benefits of the Medical Model, with all their drugging and DSM labeling.

    AND RW’s “alternative facts” will be published somewhere on page 17 in some newspaper or journal (besides MIA), AND the Medical Model’s “alternative reality” will consistently be presented on page 1 of newspapers and journals, AND with their billions in advertising, Big Pharma continues to plaster the benefits of their drugs and DSM labels EVERY NIGHT on prime time TV – day in and day out. The brainwashing is overwhelming, and it completely dominates and overshadows ANY chance for opposition thinking to have a legitimate opportunity of gaining a foothold in the public’s thinking.

    The capitalist profit system, with its omnipresent ability to buy off and ultimately control almost all scientific research, AND control the key structures within public media and their means to disseminate information to the masses, will tolerate a Robert Whitaker (and his writings), because it knows it has the money and means to ultimately control and dominate the public narrative.

    Some may think I am being cynical in my above analysis, I believe it is a very accurate and sober view of what we are truly up against in our struggle to end all forms of psychiatric abuse in the world.

    The current level of political polarization in this country, and the dangers of an outright fascist takeover, should give serious pause to anyone charting a course for serious institutional and political change in this country.

    Political exposures, like the one above, ARE very important to create conditions for change, but MAINLY as a means for gathering new forces for much bigger battles ahead.

    NOTHING fundamental will be changed with psychiatry and their entire Medical Model unless, and until, we are prepared to move beyond a profit based capitalist system. Psychiatry, with all its drugging and labeling, is very useful (and necessary) for the future of the capitalist system. It keeps the masses anesthetized and focused on personal genetic flaws, instead of critiquing the sick and outmoded system that surrounds them and consumes every fiber of their being.

    Their destiny (both psychiatry and capitalism) has now become completely intertwined and forever inseparable. Any strategy for future political change MUST take this reality into serious consideration, and incorporate that understanding into all forms of strategy and tactics.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Katel

    You have a very powerful personal story of trauma and harm caused by exposure to psychiatry and their Medical Model. I looked back at all your comment history here at MIA (by clicking on your name, “Katel”). and there is a profoundly important set of comments describing in great detail specific examples of almost every form of so-called “treatment” abuse that you had to endure at the hands of these criminals.

    Katel, your writing is very clear and direct, with an extremely important message regarding the harm related to psychiatry. I would hope you could find a way (at some point) to work with MIA editors to write up your personal story related to psychiatric harm for publication as a blog at this website.

    Both your story, and your ability to dissect and expose (in an ongoing way) the fraud of psychiatry and their Medical Model is a gift to potential victims of psychiatric oppression, and a powerful weapon in creating more favorable conditions (over time)) to ultimately bring down this beast of oppression.

    The area of MA. in which you live does have many potential allies who have endured similar forms of trauma at the hands of psychiatry (I have met many great people from that area) and they are quite articulate and active in fighting this form of oppression. I would hope at some point you could seek out and find a way to link up with these people.

    I have no specific solutions to offer you for your personal journey, but I do believe in neuroplasticity as it relates to slow recovery from past harm done by truamatic psychiatric “treatments.” And I am truly inspired by your humanity and fighting spirit (which shines through in your writings here at MIA) when it comes to taking on the powerful institution of psychiatry.

    All the best – Carry on! Richard

    Report comment

  • AP, yes it is very sad to say that you are quite correct about this.

    People have been under the false notion that after enough exposure of the fraud of psychiatry and their Medical Model, that the “house of cards” will simply fall – NOT going to happen!

    Psychiatry and their Medical Model (with drugging and psychiatric labeling) has evolved into a very important pillar propping up, and helping to maintain this profit based capitalist system.

    Psychiatry and their Medical Model CANNOT, and WILL NOT, fall until we remove and replace this criminal system with a people controlled socialist system.

    The future of psychiatry (and their Medical Model) have a destiny that is now permanently intertwined. So-called “reform” solutions are a tragic dead end and a waist of valuable time and effort, UNLESS they are fought for as part of an overall revolutionary strategy.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Diane Smith says: “And I know that pharmaceutical companies spin their findings in the most flattering way but I am at a loss as to help people who desperately need more than talk therapy. I have seen people have amazing results with depression meds.”

    Talk therapy may not immediately help people (and bad therapy may actually harm people) because we live in a very traumatic and difficult world.

    And “mind altering drugs” do sometimes provide short term benefits for people suffering deep emotional pain, but this DOES NOT mean it will benefit people in the long term. The evidence shows just the opposite; long term use of psych drugs causes FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Diane Smith says: “People should not be prescribed meds right away unless it is strongly indicated but for true clinical depression how does he propose that we help people function on a daily basis?”

    What is “true clinical depression?” This is just a made up term by psychiatry and Big Pharma. It has no provable scientific basis. And it fits well with those people doing therapy who do not have the patience and understanding to work with people struggling to survive in a difficult world.

    And what does “strongly indicated” really mean? Sometimes both the “client” AND the therapist are looking for the quick fix.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Another great blog exposing some of the deeper elements within neoliberalism and its justification for a class based capitalistic system.

    Combine this exposure of the oppressive roots within Positive Psychology with James Davies’ book “Sedated,” and you now have a powerful pair of ideological weapons exposing the finer points of ruling class control and domination. Psychiatry and their Medical Model fits right into this paradigm of “genetic theories of original sin.”

    And we all must carefully examine many aspects of New Age Spiritualism, which also has a strong current of Positive Psychology meandering through its ideological underpinnings.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    We should all be more than a little nervous about the current state of polarization in this country, which clearly seems headed in the direction of civil war type conditions and potential violent conflict.

    And unfortunately, the balance of political understanding and developed organization is NOT very favorable at this time to those on the “Left” who grasp the necessity for humanity to move well beyond the oppressive nature of a class based capitalist society.

    When I make reference to “revolution” I am clearly referring to both realms you mention, That is, “revolution of thought” and a total breakdown of the social order of things.

    For all those who want a better world, we must certainly be involved in “changing minds” in revolutionary ways and in a revolutionary direction. Helping ourselves and other people become more rational and empathetic about every aspect of institutional forms of human oppression, and seeking newer revolutionary alternative economic and political forms of social organization etc. beyond capitalism.

    As to the “breakdown in the social order of things,” that will not necessarily occur by human design or intention, but instead is the inevitably consequence of the intense class conflict over control of natural resources and necessities of life, fueled by international competition and related conflict of rising imperialist powers.

    And yes, we should be very concerned about exactly who has most of the guns at the present time, especially with the rise of organized Right Wing militias etc. HOWEVER, when there is a total breakdown of the social order, guns will suddenly be available to everyone who wants one.

    This is because this level of social breakdown will create major divisions within the military itself (creating different well armed factions) and within various police forces etc., and of course various parts of the country. And since there are already so many guns in this country, people will just end up confiscating them from WHEREVER they are stored.

    I say none of this lightly, and have some of the same fears you have, and especially for my children and grandchildren who are inheriting such a complex and divided world.

    I recently completed a new song (on the day after the last election) called “Second Coming.” In this song there are two Native American characters living on the streets of Birmingham, Ala. Here is my chorus:

    —————————————————————-

    Shiloh says there’ll be a “Second Coming” / A reckoning all the sinners need not fear

    There’ll be no “come to Jesus moment” / When the “Strange Fruit” sadly reappears

    Yellow Bird can’t say if she’ll pull the trigger / When someone looks her dead in the eye

    Said, she’ll never ever stay silent / When the Klan, again starts to rise / Oh, they’ll be no compromise

    You know these wars are never “civil” / Especially the second time around

    ——————————————————————–
    Richard

    Report comment

  • I agree with those who have heaped a great deal of praise for this author and his penetrating analysis of neoliberalism as a guiding ideology for the current state of modern capitalism.

    James Davies (with his book “Sedated”) has taken concepts about all the enormous harm perpetrated by the medicalization of human distress that some of us have been critiquing for many years, and uncovered and revealed multiple deeper layers of both the institutional and mental chains of control this Medical Model has created in today’s world.

    For anyone hoping to make major, and/or revolutionary, change in the world. this is not only a must read, but also a must be discussed, digested and developed, and then circulated analysis.

    Here is just one of the more insightful parts of this interview:
    “…rather than saying ‘poverty generates multiple forms of human suffering and distress’ the word trigger invokes the powerful cultural symbol of ‘mental illness’ to denote something that poverty supposedly provokes and that the model can supposedly ‘treat’. This move does a couple of things. It ensures that the model remains relevant in the face of the social determinants of distress, protecting or even expanding the model’s jurisdiction over us, but it also allows the model to claim sophisticated ‘bio-psycho-social’ credentials, despite relegating social causes to mere ‘triggers’ and widely privileging biological/drug interventions in the management of what has been triggered – namely – the ‘mental illness’.”

    On the negative side of Davies’ analysis is the fact that after a such a devastating critique of modern capitalism, he still remains stuck in “reform” and “reformist” type solutions for all the economic and political problems that will require serious *revolutionary* solutions.

    Davies says:
    “Firstly, reform has to start with ourselves…until we have more accommodating political arrangements in our economy, reform will be significantly hobbled.”

    Davies appears only willing to hint at the need for larger systemic change leaving his readers to somehow believe that fundamental change is still possible within a class based capitalist system, even though he admits it will be more difficult in a post Covid 19 world.

    Here Davies states the following”
    “On the other hand, it is also true that socio-economic reform looks far less implausible than it did even in early 2020, given the economic effects that Covid will doubtless continue to exert in the coming years (an area I expand on in the book). So, and to finish by paraphrasing something I say in ‘Sedated’: when change arrives, and it will arrive as no economic paradigm has ever existed in perpetuity, alternative ideas in the realm of mental health will only be poised for implementation if we keep putting in the effort right now; if we work to defy the neo-liberal pressures and enticements, and if we develop interventions that put the needs of people and communities above our failing and now fading economic ideology.”

    All this type of analysis does is ultimately perpetuate the illusion that fundamental change is somehow still possible within a capitalist system. This follows earlier comments about so-called “socialist” elements within society that predated the Medical Model takeover that began the 1980’s. This sort of implies that early incarnations of psychiatry and the “mental health” system were somehow devoid of oppressive forms of power and control over its patients and potential victims.

    While forms of societal help in the past that involved principally counseling elements may have provided more support for people experiencing extreme psychological distress, we cannot forget the snake-pit hospitals, Electro-shock, Freudian misogyny and earlier incarnations of psych drugs like Thorazine etc.

    I bring all this up NOT to suggest that we shouldn’t fight for reforms in the current reality, but only that we should do so firmly with the perspective that this work is part of an overall strategy for revolutionary changes leading to a complete socialist transformation of society. Here I am talking about a new form of socialism (learning from past historical mistakes), that has never before been attempted in human history.

    Davies’ overall analysis in “Sedated” only reaffirms my belief that psychiatry and all forms of psychiatric oppression are firmly and FOREVER entrenched within the capitalist system. The Medical Model needs capitalism for its existence, AND capitalism now needs the Medical Model for its future existence. This symbiotic and deadly relationship between these two entities has evolved in a relatively short historical period over the past four decades.

    The power and control (the drugging, incarceration, and mental chains) that the Medical Model (psychiatry and Big Pharma) provides for keeping the potentially rebellious sections of society under manageable control is an ESSENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY for the future of capitalism’s existence. The future of BOTH the capitalist system, and psychiatry and their Medical Model, are now forever inseparably bound. All future efforts to end all forms of psychiatric abuse in the world MUST accept this reality AND strategize accordingly.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kerry

    You know I have great respect and support for what you are doing with EMDR. I hope you’re open to being challenged on a few points.

    You said: “Other non-EMDR trainings I have attended taught me “medication can be what allows the work to get done”. (Of course, it’s not right for everyone.)…One of the central tasks of EMDR therapy is keeping anxiety and dissociation “within tolerable limits”, which can be greatly facilitated by medication – and healing will be just as possible and just as robust for that person, if not more efficient.”

    I don’t deny that certain mind altering *drugs* can be useful to people in very SHORT TERM doses to manage and control excessive, or even out of control, feelings, emotions, and/or extreme psychological distress.

    That being said: when we examine the overall role of mind altering psychiatric *drugs* as it effects people with “PTSD diagnoses” and other so-called psychiatric “diagnoses,” we must acknowledge that the principle effect of these drugs is to numb emotions and interfere with (and often damage) necessary and appropriate cognitive functioning. All the things we need and depend on to navigate and better understand the world and our role within it.

    These *drugs* also create dependency and undermine a persons ability to actually develop and strengthen important coping skills to manage life in an extremely stressful world.

    The overall negative effects and role of these drugs in today’s world FAR OUTWEIGH any of the short term benefits that a small minority might obtain from their use.

    And what i have learned from my EMDR work and my readings on the subject is that when people do EMDR while on psychiatric *drugs,* they may have to actually repeat some of the same work when they come off of these mind altering *drugs,* BECAUSE they are now experiencing a FULLER INTENSITY of feelings and emotions related to past trauma events.

    And finally Kerry, notice that I never used the word “medication,” and always used the word *drugs* to describe these mind altering substances that are so prolifically prescribed in today’s world.

    I believe it is extremely important to make a clean break from all Medical Model thinking and use of language in order to promote more humane ways of helping people overcome trauma. There are no scientific medical markers to justify psychiatric diagnoses. There is no evidence of cellular anomalies that justify the word “disease” to describe extreme psychological distress. And thus: there is no scientific justification to use the word “medication” to describe what are in fact, mind altering *drugs.*

    We should NEVER concede psychiatry and their entire medical Model, the use of the word “medication” without a serious and quick challenge. Serious social and political change in the world has always necessitated the struggle over language and terminology. And the use of the word “medication” is one of those words we need to fight over and change NOW if we want genuine change if the world when it comes to overcoming all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • l_e_cox says: “When am I going to hear news of someone using a Locational or similar process and what their experiences were with it?”

    I sincerely hope we do not hear too much about “Locational processes.” because Scientology is a dangerous cult that has harmed many people.

    And I would warn MIA readers that while Scientology is a major critic of psychiatry, they are equally as dangerous, AND they are competing with each other for the same base of very vulnerable potential victims.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Fifty percent of all opiate (including heroin) overdose deaths involve benzos being part of the cocktail that ends up killing people. In fact, I would argue that benzos are THE MOST DECISIVE killing agent in the cocktail. That is because most opiate addicts know how to use their opiates, INCLUDING FENTYNYL but they often forget exactly how many Xanax or Ativan pills they had earlier in the day.

    Benzos are highly desirable drugs for people addicted to opiates because benzos magnify the effect of the opiates, but sadly this can be deadly because it can totally shut down breathing and the heart.

    Yes, I know that they have to sedate someone who goes on a respirator, but this particular cocktail of drugs probably killed many people before the Covid had a chance to complete its deadly effects.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kerry

    This was a great summary of EMDR therapy.

    When I was doing active therapy (including EMDR) with people (until 2015) I found EMDR to be especially helpful for trauma victims. In some cases I saw remarkable positive changes take place in just a few sessions.

    People expend a great deal of energy throughout their life trying to avoid and/or “outrun” their memories of trauma experiences. These efforts are often labelled and falsely *medicalized* as “depression,” “anxiety,” or “Bi-polar” etc….

    EMDR can allow some people to finally “slow down” and look at these past events in a safe place, AND with an adult mind that’s more capable of reprocessing these events in a way that appropriately assigns “responsibility” and allows for more self empathy.

    When bad things happen to children they often “take on the badness as if it were their own.” This fills children with enormous amounts of guilt and shame at an early age that they often carry into adulthood. EMDR can sometimes finally provide the safety and necessary distance from these events to more appropriately access true responsibility and so-called “blame” for events that the trauma victim blamed on themselves.

    We now know that each time someone remembers past events they are actually recreating new memories, because there is a process of reprocessing going on that re-edits these past events with the current *adult* outlook and moral capabilities and standards.

    With EMDR people do not forget the past trauma events, but are often much more able to tolerate and “own” the memories. and especially NO LONGER have to expend so much self defeating energy running from those past memories.

    Understanding this about trauma and the positive qualities of EMDR therapy (when carried out appropriately) helps explain and expose just how harmful psychiatry’s (and their colluding partner, Big Pharma’s) Medical Model (with all their labeling and drugging) is to trauma victims in the world.

    Kerry, your work helping people who have experienced trauma is very difficult, and I salute your compassion and efforts to do this work and educate others who may wish to pursue it in their counseling career or their own personal work in therapy.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • KS

    Those are very interesting and scary links you provided. Before this I was not aware of any connection between tick borne illnesses and bio warfare labs etc. – it never even entered my mind. Although I did find it strange that widespread existence of ticks in New England (I grew up in southern Me. and now live in southern Ma.) was never a problem when I was growing up, or in my middle years.

    I have had Lyme twice now and was fortunate to have early symptoms and thus was placed on a quick course of antibiotics which (so far) has precluded any further symptoms.

    My wife and i have each (so far this year) removed two ticks that had already begun to bite into our legs. And just this morning I found a dead tick in my bed, which probably fell off one of our dogs who like to cuddle with us in the bed in the mornings. The dogs are given some medicine that eventually kills ticks that stay on their body for a certain length of time.

    Please let us know if you learn anything substantially new on this topic in the future. I am sure the government and military will do everything possible to not allow anything about ticks and bio-labs to become public knowledge.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lisa

    This was an extremely powerful story of the horrible odyssey your family has endured related to some of the worst forms of psychiatric abuse. I wish you and your son all the best in future efforts at recovery and also restitution from those responsible for these crimes.

    This story needs to be publicly told and exposed well beyond the scope of Mad in America. I would hope you and/or other contacts you have in the creative world, could write and produce a movie on this entire subject matter. The world is in desperate need of another movie with the creative power of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.”

    I would hope you would view (and spread on social media) this brand new 11 minute video called “Prescripticide.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIUSCGIfFD8&t=378s

    This powerful video highlights the powerful connection between psychiatric drugs and the rise in suicides and the violence connected to mass shootings. This is information that has been systematically hidden from the public.

    Your story, together with the “Prescripticide” video, would make for a very interesting conversation with documentary film producer Michael Moore.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • KS

    There are some things we need to be cautious about when it comes to these genetic testing and metabolism theories regarding psychiatric drugs. You may have addressed this in other comments, but I will make a few points here for discussion.

    We have to be VERY CAREFUL that Big Pharma and psychiatry do not use this science about genetics and metabolism as a way to actually EXPAND their prescribing of psychiatric drugs. Example being: they do the testing (and makes tons of money on testing) and then prescribe like crazy to all those not testing positive.

    There may be some people who are genetically more sensitive to psychiatric drugs and will have the more extreme “akathisia” side effects etc. BUT that does NOT mean that on some sort of continuum of effects, millions of others will have various lesser levels of “akathisia,” AND a host of other negative effects from psychiatric drugging.

    We have to make sure we expose the totality of harm done by these drugs when discussing or promoting these genetic tests for metabolism issues with psychiatric drugs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • rebel

    I have great respect for you and your heroic struggle escaping from the clutches of psychiatry and their oppressive Medical Model. And I am very inspired and have deep respect for the fact that you have chosen to be active against the Medical Model by writing here at MIA.

    My challenges to some of your words here are not meant to be disrespectful to you or your religious beliefs. We are all on a journey to uncover the truth in the world and try to use that knowledge to help liberate us from all forms of oppression. This journey requires the struggle over words and belief systems, and this can be very challenging, and even uncomfortable at times.

    My belief system, including my understanding of history, tells me that various forms of superstition, including some of those held within certain religious doctrines, have been very harmful to humanity, and that these superstitions stand as a roadblock to human progress.

    When I see contradictions in certain statements in the comment section, I sometimes choose to point this out. I try to conduct these discussions in a respectful way. I would be dishonest if I hid my beliefs on these questions, and a coward because I somehow feared people’s reactions to my strong views on these questions.

    My view on “spirituality” is very much related to human connectedness. That is, the powerful feelings one experiences when being part of a movement to change the world for the better. In my experiences going back to the 1960’s, I have felt emotional highs (empathy and love) when participating in some political movements, where “the whole felt much greater than its particular parts.”

    Rebel, I hope in the future we can agree and disagree on some things respectfully without taking personal offense to each other’s comments.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Yes, your logic makes sense only if you believe in a “supreme being” that can only be accepted as truly existing based on “faith.” There is no science that validates the existence of a “Creator.” And this concept of a “God” or “Creator” would also have to be “infinite.”

    It makes FAR MORE sense, within the scope of science, to believe that “matter in motion is infinite.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead says:

    “I’m guessing you and other MIA commenters who have gone against the grain on COVID over the past year and have been attacked for doing so are feeling a sense of vindication as more & more “conspiracy theories” are being borne out — with more to come. I know I am.”

    There are real “conspiracies” in the world, and then there are “conspiracy theories,” which has taken on a more specific meaning in contemporary society.

    (from Wikipedia)
    “Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[6][9] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proven or disproven.” (from Wikipedia)

    There is ONLY ONE THEORY regarding Covid 19 that for a period of time was INCORRECTLY labeled as a “conspiracy theory,” and that particular theory was related to the actual origin of the virus – that is, a virus directly coming from animals, or an escaped virus from a lab.

    The more evidence that is revealed, indicates that Covid most likely came from a lab. But even this has not yet been definitively proven.

    As far as I know, ALL THE OTHER “conspiracy theories” related to Covid, are still proven to be false, AND are quite harmful to humanity’s efforts to eradicate this devastating disease.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • rebel

    You said above “…allowing each one of us the freedom to be who we are created to be by Our Creator and the “free will” to choose whether or not to follow the path Our Creator has set for us.”

    These words are filled with contradictions. How can there be “free will” if our path to the future has already been “set for us” by “Our Creator”???

    And BTW, who created “Our Creator,” and what does this all say about the scientific theory of evolution?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • rebel

    “There is a difference between what the Declaration actually says and what the Founding Fathers meant to say.”

    “Many of the signatories of the Declaration were slaveholders who considered black men their property and, obviously, not their equal. Native Americans were only referred to in the Declaration as “Indian Savages.” Also, the Founding Fathers’ initial idea of who controlled the rights described in the Declaration was the very small circle of male Anglo, Protestant land owners that they represented.”

    So it is obvious that the Declaration of Independence was NOT a document that sought to eliminate all forms of human exploitation. Any critical examination of U.S. history will clearly see that as America developed into a world dominating imperialist empire, its degree of human exploitation knew no bounds.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rebel

    We may agree on some things about psychiatric oppression, but I would say: NO ONE should be learning any lessons (except by negative example) about “freedom” from Thomas Jefferson.

    He owned 600 slaves over his lifetime, AND made most of his income through the buying and selling of human beings. And it would be safe to say that there was some sexual exploitation going on along with his international human trafficking.

    You said: “… applauding “free will” and “freedom” as it is meant to be in America…”

    Where is the “freedom” in a country founded (and expanded for 100 years) on a foundation of slavery and also the brutal exploitation of the working class. So much for the “…freedom guaranteed to us by the Creator no matter our alleged social class…”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kevin

    You have absolutely nothing to apologize for. Your astute comments started off a very insightful and necessary critique of Dr. kelmenson’s writings here at MIA. Throughout many of his writings (go back and review his other blogs and the comment sections) there has been a consistent theme of “blame the victim” type thinking. Many writers here are correctly criticizing this counter current to some of his better ideas.

    All of Dr. kelmenson’s writings have failed to address the important fact (and overall context for examining the Medical Model) that we live in a profit/class based economic and political system. This type of system is filled with multiple forms of trauma and inequalities that sets the stage for various forms of “learned helplessness.”

    Libertarian, and other anti-socialist theoretical perspectives, will often posit the concept of “free will” as almost completely abstracted from the material realities facing the “under classes” within modern capitalist societies. How can we really understand and deeply critique the Medical Model without making direct connections to the type of economic and political system that sustains AND directly benefits from psychiatry’s role as an institution of social control?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Yes, you are both right about this.

    The “mental health” system has now become an essential component of class control by the top one percent of profit seekers.

    The psychiatric labels and drugs target the most potentially rebellious sections of our society. The labels become psychological chains, and the drugs numb anger and other emotions that can be channeled into various forms of resistance.

    Overall, these “genetic theories of original sin” that form the basis of the Medical Model, are used to focus people’s attention on so-called personal human flaws, as opposed to the inherent “sickness” in the capitalist institutions and unequal class structures within our society.

    It is very important in all future organizing efforts to link the struggle against psychiatric oppression with the struggle against a profit based capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    I don’t think anyone here has said that an anti-psychiatry stance or an anti-psychiatry political position by itself is “dogmatic.”

    Being anti-psychiatry and calling for the elimination of psychiatry as a medical specialty is a legitimate position to take in today’s world. It can be backed up by real scientific analysis, and by an objective assessment of how psychiatry functions as an oppressive institution in society.

    I think the point that Steve and KS are making, is that any legitimate political movement or ideology can be incorrectly understood and carried out by veering into a form of “dogmatism.” That is: rigid or mechanical applications of a set of principles or beliefs that ignores context and nuance related to specific circumstances and people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “The data was analyzed to determine whether the monthly suicide rates (which ranged from April 1st to July 31st, 2020) changed after the pandemic began.”

    I agree that ANY conclusions on this question (that is, “no increase in suicides during the pandemic”) is, at best, extremely misleading. This is especially true since it only examined a 4 month period early in the pandemic. And of course, they (the scientific and psychiatric establishment) would NEVER want to analyze the potential causal effects of increased psych drugging on suicides and social violence in society.

    Oldhead says: “The first thing that crossed my mind was not the accuracy of the claim about suicides not being related to the lockdowns (which also increased transmission by forcing people inside to share infected air)….”

    When someone examines the overall psychological effects of the pandemic, they are NOT just looking at the issue of “lockdowns.” There are several other issues related to fear and anxiety about contracting Covid, AND, especially trauma regarding the loss of loved ones to the disease. We are now approaching 600 thousand deaths in the U.S.

    And there is simply NO EVIDENCE that “lockdowns….increased transmission by forcing people inside to share infected air…” What agenda does this unscientific and unsubstantiated statement serve???

    It is very clear when looking at the near disappearance of the flu in this country over this past year, that mask wearing and decreased social contact related to “lockdowns” LOWERED THE TRANSMISSION of any, and ALL, diseases.

    Any FAIR analysis of “Lockdowns” (see my above comment) would conclude that they had both positive and negative aspects in trying to fight against a very REAL and dangerous pandemic threat to humanity.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Let’s be very clear and candid on the question of “Lockdowns” and Covid 19.

    1) Lockdowns were absolutely necessary AND saved tens of thousands of lives. In fact, if the Trumps administration had not been in COMPLETE DENIAL, AND had clearly and uniformly implemented ‘Lockdowns” in a decisive way (with a clear mask policy), at least two hundred thousand lives would have been saved in the U.S. We could have actually moved AWAY from “Lockdowns” many months sooner IF there had been political leadership based on real science. Where this was carried out in the world more correctly, there was a DRAMATIC decrease in Covid deaths, AND their society only shutdown for a short period.

    2) The ONLY REASON we can now move away from “Lockdowns,” as one method of controlling the Covid 19 pandemic, is because of the huge success of the Covid 19 vaccines. The vaccines have been overwhelmingly safe and effective, AND are THE SOLE REASON why we are now closer to herd immunity. (And yes, I would probably NOT take the J&J vaccine unless it was the only vaccine option available.)

    3) Yes, it was reasonable and rational to have serious distrust of Big Pharma when it comes to drug production and vaccines. BUT this same class of people are also vulnerable to dying from Covid 19 AND had enormous self interest (in addition to making big profits) in developing safe and effective vaccines. AND I believe most of these people actually took the vaccines along with their family members.

    4) I find it very difficult to take seriously those people writing comments about Covid 19 at MIA who were dead wrong on several key life and death issues related to this deadly virus. It was necessary during this pandemic to correctly sum up and apply scientific principles in real time. Some people had more difficulty doing this than others, and so far have not summed up their mistaken analysis.

    5) Some people writing here said Covid would disappear last Fall, Then they spread links to articles that said it would disappear by April of this year. Some of these same people discouraged people from taking the Covid vaccines. Again, the vaccines ARE the sole reason why Covid is in serious decline in the U.S.

    6) Yes, “Lockdowns” and “MasK policies” clearly “divide into two,” and have some negative and harmful aspects, ESPECIALLY when applied incorrectly. Yes, we undermine belief in science and the Covid vaccines when vaccinated people are not allowed to go maskless, and when people are wearing masks outdoors etc.

    7) Yes, “Lockdowns” were applied far too long in school systems, and this has created harm for many young people. There was enough evidence early on that schools could be opened in safer ways due to the differences in how Covid affects young people. There were many school systems in some parts of the country that successfully applied safe methods of staying open.

    8) Covid is not over for many people in the world (India dropped its guard and is paying a huge price in recent death tolls), and those people promoting “Anti-Vaxx” propaganda, and/or, not getting the vaccine, are actually preventing us (the whole world) from achieving human herd immunity. Covid 19 is real and must still be taken seriously. At the same time, we must sum up, criticize, and AVOID all the errors of over reaction and the related unscientifically based excessive control measures being unevenly applied throughout the country.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “… the potential increases in suicide rates due to the pandemic and economic impacts of the pandemic might be YET TO COME [emphasis added], as the economic recession has been shown to be a contributor to rising suicidality.”

    I expect that with an increase in psychiatric drug use (especially “antidepressants’) as Big Pharma and psychiatry prey on increased levels of fear and personal loss, the rates of suicide will start to rise again. And we know that these drugs numb emotions, including empathy, which is one explanation why the number of mass shooting, once again, seems to be on the rise.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I would ask the question: Is it really being “harsh” to point out that in the face of multiple forms of trauma and oppression in the world, someone keeps telling you over and over again that “you just don’t eat the right foods?”

    That in the face of being labeled “mentally ill” for life, given mind numbing toxic drugs, sometimes incarcerated in psychiatric prisons, limited in your access to good jobs, housing etc., your told over and over again that “food first” is THE WAY to finding “a vision to a happier, healthier tomorrow.” That “food first” will somehow give you the “resilience” to do WHAT I say? – perhaps maybe tolerate (and even accept!) the intolerable.

    And the same people telling you over and over again “you don’t eat right” (just another thing I’m f#*king up in my life) never attempt to identify (or critically analyze) the true sources of your overall oppression and unhappiness.

    To me this sounds like a very sophisticated form of “gaslighting” where you will be constantly questioning your own sanity when a better diet essentially does NOTHING to fundamentally address the oppressive power and control of psychiatry and a class based profit system that denies almost half of humanity decent food and other necessary essentials of a decent life.

    Once again, nutrition is NOT “the foundation of resilience.” And those who keep telling us this, in the face of very identifiable forms of oppression and means to fight it, are actually leading us AWAY from finding a true path to liberation and a healthier life.

    Oh, and BTW, YES, we should probably eat better than we do along the way.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Is nutrition really the foundation of resilience? I would shout NO! and then put it way down the list of important factors in maintaining sanity and survival in today’s world.

    The final conclusion of this blog states the following:
    ” We lay out a three-step approach to improving mental health resilience which acknowledges that we are not all the same, that individual differences will influence efficacy of different treatments, and there is a place in the “mental health treatment tool box” for all the evidence-based treatments: these include whole-foods diets, micronutrients, counselling, family therapy, and medication. And we argue that nutrition ought to come first, because it provides the foundation for all the others.”

    In this blog there is not a single criticism of psychiatry and their Disease/Drug Based paradigm of so-called “treatment.” How can we even begin to discuss the importance of nutrition in today’s world without identifying the very oppressive social and political terrain in which we all live (some more than others), AND which has everything to do with who has the ability to have access to good nutrition.

    This blog provides no critical critique of psychiatric labeling, psychiatric drugs, psych hospitals, and poor counseling methods in today’s “mental health” system. No political critique of the pervasive class based oppression that denies the majority of people in the world from even having access to good food, besides being being able to be educated about these type of issues.

    All this blog wants people to do is put “nutrition” (and possibly reading their book “The Better Brain”) at the head of the list of important things to do in order to be “resilient in the face of a very stressful world.”

    Of course good nutrition is important, but it is NOT “the foundation of resilience.” I would suggest that the following things on this list are FAR MORE important than nutrition:

    1) and internalize sense of love and connection to other people currently in your life (or in your past) who support and care for your human needs, and help provide a belief and overall sense of hope for the future.

    2) a cognitive awareness of what forces in society can be trusted to help meet your needs and those of other human beings, AND what forces in society should be avoided and potentially eliminated in society.

    3) an ability (flowing from the above two conditions) to think strategically about possible ways to overcome obstacles and forms of oppression that stand in the way of one’s survival, and of future possibilities to move forward and make progress in life for oneself AND other human beings.

    Think for a moment about those people who survived concentration camps in World War Two (where “nutrition” was non existent), and those people currently incarcerated in prisons and psych hospitals (where good “nutrition” is severely limited) – what can and will help these people the most from not being totally “crushed” by this experience and thereby losing (or never gaining) their resilience?

    Better food is NOT even close to being the most important foundational necessity for what is going to help these people survive this experience with some sense of hope and motivation for moving forward with their lives.

    As is the case with all the other blogs written by these authors, they discuss the value of nutrition in today’s world ABSTRACTED (without any real social or political critique) from the very real forms of oppression facing humanity, especially those people suffering from all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kevin

    A very powerful and well written blog full of many insights, and more reasons why psychiatry and their entire Disease/Drug Based paradigm needs to be abolished.

    I am also saddened that you encountered a therapist who would diagnose you with PTSD and then NEVER ONCE address the very trauma experiences that sent you on this horrific odyssey. Having worked as a therapist for 25 years, I encountered many such people in the field. Many were quite fearful and could not tolerate the discomfort of exploring horrible childhood experiences with another person because they never did the necessary work on themselves around these issues to know how to really help someone else.

    Kevin, you did mention that you had several siblings, and that you “escaped the fate of your brothers.” I am curious to know more about their “fate,” and do you have any contact with them? Can they help validate your childhood trauma? I do know that in many such abusive families there are often many types of “splits” where there is actually very strong feelings of resentment, and almost a kind of competition as to who had it worse.

    I wish you the best and surely hope you continue to write and increase your activism exposing all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    It is clearly beyond the time for you to be a published writer at MIA. This particular comment is filled with the kind of wisdom that should be published and read as an official blog at MIA; you will then be able to reach a far broader audience with your powerful words.

    Your humility is filled with so much strength and honesty that it in no way diminishes the content of your words, but only enhances the power and strength of your narrative. Please consider rewriting this particular comment as an official MIA blog, ASAP.

    Carry on! Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Your last comment is a great summation of some of the important themes in this discussion, and also where we must stand in order to support the millions of victims of sexual trauma.

    I worked as a therapist for 25 years and used the trauma therapy method called EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing), which has not been discussed so far in this particular thread. I believe use of this type of therapy has been subject to unfair criticism to discredit recovered memories of past trauma. I witnessed several therapy sessions where “clients” were able to access details of memories of past trauma experiences, and this helped them to “reprocess” these events in a way that reduced related anxiety, shame, and guilt.

    My experience using this client *centered* (you go where the client wants to go) type therapy method, only validates the fact that memory can be “repressed” or “blocked” because it is too painful or uncomfortable for a person to remember at the present time.

    EMDR can help provide a safe environment for someone to begin to recover “repressed” or “blocked” memories. Some people theorize that former victims will sometimes only begin to access past details when they feel more “safe,” and/or strong enough to endure (and “reprocess”) some of the deeply painful memories.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    You said: “I would appreciate it if you are a little more careful in your between-the-lines implications in your “questions” in the future.”

    In this situation it was entirely fair for me to question your use of the phrase “this fiasco.”

    These are not yet provable facts; they are STILL only conjecture. I don’t know enough about the nature and purpose of these labs in China, and other parts of the world, to draw a definite conclusion that these experiments should NEVER be done.

    We do know that scientists in the past kept the smallpox virus in laboratories in order to develop an effective vaccine. This was certainly a great advance for humankind. Sometimes certain risks in science need to be taken in order to make important progress. We need MORE information and analysis to draw definite conclusions on these questions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • OH says: ” Breggin has also implicated Fauci in the creation of COVID 19.”

    Breggin has ONLY detailed some evidence that Faunci was working with other scientists, including some from China, on pandemic PREVENTION experiments.

    There is NO definitive evidence that these experiments somehow released the Covid 19 virus into the general public. NONE WHATSOEVER!

    This is all pure SPECULATION WITH A POLITICAL AGENDA! And that political agenda by Breggin is DEFENDING the Trump/Pence regime’s MIS-handling of the Covid 19 pandemic that led to several hundred thousand PREVENTABLE deaths.

    I cannot say with any certainty that Covid 19 was not some type of lab experiment gone wrong, BUT it is absolutely wrong, on so many levels, to promote SPECULATIVE TYPE THEORIES as if they are TRUE FACTS.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rebel

    You raise many important questions and concerns about Covid vaccines. Some of these questions will not be completely answered until several decades have past.

    HOWEVER, we (and the rest of humanity) are faced with a DECISIVE need to draw certain scientific conclusions NOW, based on the BEST available scientific evidence.

    If we DON’T act now on the BEST available evidence. we will not be able to achieve “herd immunity” and stop the deadly spread of Covid 19. And the more we hesitate, we actually give the spread of mutant strains more time to gain a foot hold in society, THUS PROLONGING THE LONG TERM DANGERS OF THIS VIRUS.

    This is no time to be stuck in “relativism;” a view that we cannot really know and ACT ON the “relative truth” of the moment.

    We simply do not have the time to remain perpetually skeptical or “agnostic” on these scientific questions about the Covid 19 vaccines.

    Sometimes we must act decisively on the BEST available information, and then continue to sum up each and every new fact we gather, as things develop. The best current evidence says that the vaccines ARE “safe and effective.”

    This IS one of those decisive moments in history where difficult decisions must be made despite NOT having ALL the related information.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • THANK YOU KS! You speak the truth so clearly and succinctly.

    There is a lot at stake here, including (most importantly) the very lives of psychiatric victims and survivors.

    In my view, we have completely lost Peter Breggin as a serious writer and activist against psychiatric oppression. He has totally gone “off the rails” and abandoned genuine science when it comes to the Covid 19 pandemic, along with his unfortunate embrace of other dangerous Right Wing Trumpian type perspectives. He is now, sadly, more of a liability than an asset to our movement

    We CANNOT allow that same trajectory to occur to other activists within the anti-psychiatry movement. We are on a “long road” in our fight against psychiatric oppression – this road will be filled with many twists and turns over the years. We are currently being tested, IN REAL TIME, as to our ability to assess genuine science and chart a political course of radical activism that can actually succeed in saving humanity.

    Some people are currently “failing,” (so far) in this “real time” test. We must do our best (at the risk of some discomfort) to stand up for the truth, and for what we know will truly advance the righteous cause of the oppressed.

    “Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • OH says:” I doubt that there is anyone seriously calling the virus a “hoax,” so arguing along those lines is what they like to call a “straw man” argument.”

    There are two versions of the “hoax” approach to the Covid 19 pandemic. One is that there is NO Covid 19 virus at all; it was just made up to create fear and hysteria etc.

    The other (more common) version of the “hoax” approach to Covid 19 is that it is NO MORE DANGEROUS than the common flu etc. And that we should seek “herd immunity” through normal activities without ANY drastic measures that might include vaccines and/or shutdowns etc.

    This is the approach that some writers here have taken throughout the many debates within the MIA comment section.

    Some people have actually echoed the essential Trump position that Covid 19 is no more dangerous than the flu AND would just disappear (in spring, fall, winter etc). Some here at MIA have been quoted, that it would “most likely disappear by fall {2020}.”

    Both of these main positions of this version of the “hoax” theory have been proven to be 100% wrong based on statistics and facts, including the horrendous loss of several HUNDRED THOUSAND more deaths since “the fall.”

    Of course everyone should make their own decision on these questions, BUT it is whole other thing to promote unfounded fear of vaccines that may discourage other vulnerable people from taking them, AND continue to dramatically underplay the dangers of Covid 19.

    This is especially true when those espousing this type of “hoax” theory are basing part of their own personal decisions (to avoid the vaccines) on anecdotal evidence and superstition, NOT GENUINE SCIENCE. Such as believing they might have resistance to Covid 19 because they have never had the flu over the past 20 years et, – “cross my fingers.”

    Part of our ability to eventually achieve “herd immunity” in society and diminish the severity of the deadly Covid 19 pandemic, actually INCLUDES a significant proportion of the population taking one of the vaccines.

    We all sometimes say things like “cross my fingers” or “knock on wood” etc. These are common phrases within our culture, BUT they are FAR FROM being scientific. AND they should NOT be the kind of information we use to spread unfounded fear of vaccines OR actually be encouraging others to possibly avoid the Covid 19 vaccine.

    All this is especially true when those people who demand such a high level of science when critiquing and condemning psychiatry and their oppressive Medical Model, seriously LOWER the bar of scientific responsibility when critiquing the Covid 19 pandemic.

    We ALL must seek a HIGH BAR of scientific CONSISTENCY if we want people to follow us on the road to eventually abolishing psychiatry and ending all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Do you really want to promote fear and doubt about the Covid 19 vaccine that might actually END UP influencing psychiatric survivors to NOT be vaccinated? There is a whole lot at stake in promoting this type of dialogue, with a potential for tragic outcomes for some vulnerable people who are on the fence.

    Again, it is one thing to question the quality of the science around the development of the Covid vaccine, BUT it is a whole other thing to promote unsubstantiated theories that somehow these vaccines are either bad, or not worth the risk of taking. What about the measles, small pox, and polio vaccines?

    Of course Big Pharma and those in power want to maximize profit and yes, keep all their power. BUT they also have a desire and innate drive to STAY ALIVE. Some medicines developed by these institutions and people are actually GOOD and NECESSARY for the survival of our species.

    Report comment

  • “And I will say that since the vaccine was rushed through, without trials, the doctors can’t actually give informed consent. Since they have no information on the safety or efficacy of the vaccine.”

    One can have questions or concerns about the the Covid vaccine, but his is simply a false statement.

    The are several DIFFERENT vaccines that were produced LAST SPRING. The reason why they only RECENTLY began to be administered on a wide basis, is because they went through a period of 9 months (or more) of TRIALS AND TESTING. And YES, they DO have information on safety AND efficacy.

    It is one thing to question the speed and quality of this testing, but please don’t deny its existence.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rebel

    I agree that here has long been a “pandemic” of violence, death, and overall oppression for the millions of victims of psychiatry over many decades.

    And I believe this will only continue until we have major systemic type changes in the world. Psychiatry, and their entire paradigm of so-called “treatment,” is just too valuable and necessary to the status quo to be allowed to be abolished, short of a genuine *Revolution* eliminating a profit based type economic and political system.

    And the current pandemic has provided much fertile ground for psychiatry and their Disease/Drug Based Medical Modal, to actually expand their control in the coming period. With increased isolation and levels of anxiety in the world, Big Pharma and psychiatry are lurking like vultures, ready to pounce on a new generation of potential victims. Benzo prescriptions are way up, as just one particular scary example of what dangers lie before us.

    And these new victims will be in addition to all those already lost to Covid in the locked psychiatric facilities where no safety was provided.

    You said: “Much of the suffering is due to the ramifications of these political decisions masquerading as “public health decisions.”

    I hope you are ready to hold accountable the past political leadership (the Trump/Pence regime) in this country who denied the pandemic and virtually took no action to mitigate deaths. Operation “Warp Speed” was just political “capital” that was quickly forgotten as soon as the election was over. This is negligent homicide on a mass scale, leading to several hundred thousand preventable deaths.

    “Public health decisions” have been a mixed bag that have taken place in the ABSENCE of any genuine science or humane compassion emanating from the highest levels of government, and/or guiding a sane approach to this medical catastrophe.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • KS

    As you know, I have deep respect for your past writings on Covid 19. I also agree that it is reasonable to question all the assertions from those in power regarding this pandemic, BUT we must be very careful and responsible how we go about it.

    Covid 19 has taken its deadly toll on many victims of psychiatric oppression, as those past blogs about its rapid spread and lack of protection in many psychiatric facilities (prisons). This will still be the case as we go forward.

    Given the fact that this pandemic will most likely be around (in some form or another) for quite some time in the future, we all will be confronting many ongoing scientific and related political questions in real time. This will be a challenge we cannot avoid.

    Given the level of polarization in today’s society (with a strong pre-civil war type tenor to it), every political movement (including the struggle against psychiatric oppression) will be confronted with difficult questions regarding science and competing narratives in the dissemination of news.

    The proliferation of theories in social media (and elsewhere) that have the word “conspiracy” attached to them, are incredibly disruptive and corrosive to ALL political movements for change.

    We must find a way, RIGHT NOW, to start sorting this out (even at the risk of initially losing some people) or it will come back to haunt us in ways that will seriously hold back and/or destroy righteous political movements. This is why I stressed the dangers of resorting to “pragmatism” in my previous comment.

    There is not much more I can say at this time. I am still concerned and disappointed that others here at MIA don’t share these same concerns at this time.

    KS, thanks for the feedback; I do take your words very seriously.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • As we approach nearly a half million casualties from Covid 19, I am simply amazed at the levels of denial and avoidance of reality related to this pandemic.

    It is NOT hyperbolic to say that with proper attention to genuine KNOWABLE science and appropriate leadership, at least half of these deaths were preventable in the U.S.

    The Covid 19 pandemic is a major scientific and political challenge facing humanity in REAL TIME. This is a test of one’s (individuals and institutions) ability to apply genuine science when there is such enormous stakes at hand for all of humanity.

    Since when do we shrink away from our important moral imperatives because it might somehow create some disagreements within our ranks. Let’s not bow before such a crude form of pragmatism – there is no progress without struggle.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You have made some statements about Covid 19, regarding its overall lethality and dangers, that do not match with current credible scientific summations. You are repeating similar type statements that you made in MIA comments last summer, when you predicted that Covid 19 would most likely disappear in the fall.The reality has become quite the opposite, where there is now a massive increase in Covid 19 infections and related deaths. Oldhead, are you able to be self critical about these past statements, and reconsider your depth of understanding regarding the important science related to this pandemic.

    You have also made serious allegations regarding Dr. Fauci and the origins of Covid 19 that have NO verifiable truth to them. Yes, Fauci worked with some Chinese scientists on various types of pandemic PREVENTION efforts, but there is NO credible evidence that this virus is man made, or somehow part of some nefarious form of biological warfare by the Chinese.

    If we hope to be taken serious in our anti-psychiatry activism and writings, we cannot allow ourselves to be accused of irresponsible journalism by repeating unproven theories that quite often have the word “conspiracy” attached to them.This kind of volatile speculation (not based in scientific fact) only serves to undercut a person’s role as an anti-psychiatry activist, or any other type of political activist.

    You said: “… it’s { Covid 19} a virus, with about the same mortality rate as the flu…”
    This is a false statement that dangerously understates the overall risks related to Covid 19 and the necessity for people to practice safe measures. Read the Lancet study linked below for more a more accurate account of Covid 19’s lethality.

    https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30527-0/fulltext

    You said: “The very idea of a “pre-covid” and “post-covid” world is buying into a hyper-Orwellian agenda taking place at a higher level than individual politicians or administrations. Covid should not be the reference point for history.”

    The Covid 19 pandemic is ONLY, AT BEST, HALF WAY THROUGH ITS DAMAGING HISTORICAL COURSE OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL EFFECTS ON THE PLANET. This pandemic will have even more damaging and extreme polarizing type effects on the underdeveloped world (and under classes in 1st world countries) as it continues its spread across the planet.

    You said: ” “The Fauci” was (and possibly still is) involved in financing joint American-Chinese “frankenstein” projects such as — you guessed it — genetically engineering bat viruses to be transmissible to humans. I kid you not.”

    These are misleading statements (again, not based in verifiable evidence) that not only maligns Fauci’s reputation, but also feeds into a lot of wild type speculation that ends up being anti-science. You have provided no sources for these theories, and project them as accepted fact.

    If you are repeating the far out views of Dr. Peter Breggin (who has unfortunately totally lost his political and scientific compass), then you must also be overlooking his “herd immunity” approach (also Trump’s unspoken approach) for Covid 19, and his rabid promotion of the drug, hydroxycloroquine. Both of these approaches to Covid 19 have proven (on a world scale) to be a disastrous path to follow when dealing with this particular pandemic.

    BTW, I am not without criticisms of Dr. Fauci, who I think overall “enabled” the oppressive leadership of Trump for a much too long of a period. He would have had a much more powerful effect, on promoting science and the truth about Covid, if he had resigned early on, and held his own separate press conferences refuting the criminal approach of the Trump/Pence regime.

    You said: ” Because of the divisive potential I hope to move on to more pressing things, but the above pretty much sums up my attitude on all things covid.”

    Oldhead, it is not a responsible approach (while in the middle of a deadly pandemic) to just toss out a few major pieces of potential disinformation on Covid 19, and then say you want “…move on to more pressing things.”

    These are “life and death” type issues – do you really expect (or want) people to just ignore them and “move on.”

    Covid 19, and ALL the political and scientific debates surrounding the pandemic, is a major “bellwether” for future evaluations of where to place our trust in scientific spokespeople, and other potential political leaders trying to transform the world into a more humane place to live.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Peter

    This was a great blog that made a very deep scientific connection between the evolution of our species and the unmet needs and distorted practices of modern society.

    HOWEVER, You end this blog with the following recommendations:

    ” First, we must restructure “work.” Challenge and sociality must trump “efficiency.” Second, we must reduce inequality…”
    “Third, we must restructure education. Instead of cramming kids into classrooms to “teach” one curriculum, we must help each child explore natural talents and develop programs to optimize individual growth. Guide education by a conclusion from neuroscience: what we practice, we become.”

    Unfortunately, there is absolutely NO MENTION of the “elephant in the room.” We live in a profit based capitalist/imperialist structured world, where a tiny minority controls the wealth and overall political reigns of society.

    NONE of the necessary changes you propose can actually take place UNLESS AND UNTIL, there are major systemic changes in the social and political structures across the entire planet.

    We are social beings that REQUIRE cooperative and equal social structures to guide and restructure the world (creating conditions for endless challenges and stimulation) on a continuous basis. This CANNOT happen without a transition to a SOCIALIST WORLD on a transitional path to a completely classless society and world. There is simply no other alternative that will save this planet.

    Without these types of worldwide changes and goals, this planet, and its many species, is unfortunately doomed to either climate destruction, and/or an inevitable world war between competing imperialist countries.

    It is so frustrating to read and hear brilliant minds discuss the existential plight of the human condition and then NEVER acknowledge the enormous “elephant in the room.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    You comment is so true about how the oppressive effect of psychiatry penetrates deep within those who fall victim.

    It makes me think of Matt (who sadly may have taken his own life because of this), and some of the other writers here who have described the allure of going back when times get rough.

    And I agree with OH about the quality of your writing here.

    If we go back to this past summer and fall, your writings on Covid 19 and the importance of legitimate science being followed for very difficult decisions, your courageous stance on these vital questions has proven to be SO TRUE. I hope others who participated in these conversations will review these past dialogues to reassess their own positions on these life and death questions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I would say that Phil has a very healthy obsession with the truth, AND a deep determination to eradicate one of the most oppressive institutions on the planet.

    Every one of Philip Hickey’s blogs, exposing the fraudulent nature of psychiatry, simply brings me GREAT JOY whenever I read them.

    Cynicism and negativity serves as a barrier to making significant change in the world. It’s time we all work on seeking out liberating ideology, organization, and decisive political action.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Phil
    Bravo! For once again, you have used your words and analysis, like a skilled surgical knife, to expose the fraud and harm done by psychiatry.

    You said: “So there are legitimate criticisms of psychiatry. They are “over-diagnosis related to insurance reimbursement”, “over-prescribing” to the exclusion of psychosocial therapies, and “the profit-driven influence of ‘Big Pharma’”.”

    Yes! We cannot underestimate the enormous impact that the profit motive (and the capitalist system it serves) plays when looking at the influence of Big Pharma and its strategic position in the overall U. S. economy.

    Nor can we underestimate how much psychiatry and their entire Disease/Drug based paradigm, serves the function of shifting people’s attention away from all the inherent inequalities and trauma embedded within a class based capitalist system. The “powers that be” want us to believe that all levels of personal and social dysfunction are rooted in biology and so-called genetic based personal flaws.

    Carry on Phil! You are a treasure to all those who seek truth and justice in the world. And I do hope that your medical problems involving past kidney failure have improved, and that somehow you were able to receive a much needed kidney transplant.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • It is amazing that this author (who wrote a pretty good analysis of some aspects related to the phenomena of depression) said absolutely NOTHING about the current paradigm of so-called “treatment” that mislabels people with depression, AND promotes the use of toxic drugs on a mass scale.

    This author completely ignores the political and social context for her overall analysis. I am not sure where this huge blind spot originates from, but perhaps it is fear of being condemned by the major institutions (Big Pharma and psychiatry) if she appropriately targeted them for the enormous harm they are causing with DSM labels and the toxic drugging of millions of people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “Is this another reason we’re supposed to hate Trump, for denying people psychiatrists?”

    Are you suggesting there are not another million reasons why we should be truly hating on Trump?

    BTW, need I point out now, that it was Trump and a few other writers here who tragically ignored science and said that the pandemic would disappear in the fall. How’s that working out?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • madmom

    These are very big and profound demands you are making here, AND they are absolutely righteous and scientifically correct.

    But these demands can NEVER be realized under the current profit based capitalist system.

    Psychiatry and the entire Medical Model have spent several hundred billion dollars on PR campaigns brainwashing the public over the past 4 decades. This mind control, combined with Big Pharma profits, runs very deep in its reinforcement of the status quo.

    Psychiatry and all the power it uses as a means of social control in society, is now critically necessary for the preservation of this capitalist system.

    We need major systemic change on a massive scale to end all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Johanna says:
    “We are too large and complex a society to leave this to the kindness of family or neighbours.”

    Oldhead says:
    “This is a cynical and negative assessment of what people are capable of, and I see the whole idea of “services” as akin to prostitution.”

    I believe we CANNOT simply jump from an oppressive Medical Model in a profit based capitalist system to a system where it’s “just people supporting people.” People would correctly view this as “utopian” type thinking.

    There must be a stage in between where there are people (survivors and non-survivors) who are trained in some type of “service” to help people in serious psychological distress.

    We must view this very similar to (and as a part of) a stage of socialism, where there are still some left over divisions of labor and status differences from the old system, as a TRANSITION to the new goal of a true classless society.

    This transitional period could take many decades. One overall goal of such a society would be to gradually eliminate ALL the various forms of trauma and violence, which is fundamentally rooted in poverty and multiple kinds of class based oppression. All of this trauma and violence is the ultimate source of severe human psychological distress.

    The major difference in THIS new kind of “service” is that people would instead be trained to oppose ALL Medical Model thinking and behavior. AND most importantly, they would know RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING of their “service” that their goal would be to ultimately make their jobs become totally obsolete in society.

    THIS is how we combine both Johanna’s AND Oldhead’s perspective on this vital topic.

    Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    It is a serious matter when we provide links to internet articles and websites. I would hope that you had carefully vetted this source before steering others to possibly immerse themselves into this author’s writings.

    I took over an hour of my time to careful review the internet website (including his Facebook page and other writings) of Jon Rappaport, the author you chose to use in order to promote some of your concerns about government policy on the pandemic.

    What I found was a man who is steeped in bizarre conspiracy theories that are unproven, including a hardcore anti-vaxx analysis, and other far out Right Wing theories of thought control, combined with ultra Libertarian views on individual liberty.

    This man uses all of his conspiracy theories and bizarre forms of fear mongering as a means to SELL his two books called, “Exit From The Matrix” and “Power Outside The Matrix.” These will cost you $250.00. He is also selling his personal advisory capacity. I am highly concerned for anyone that would take this man’s advice on ANY topic of importance.

    I found most of what I read by Jon Rappaport, to be virtually incomprehensible, and clearly out of touch with reality.

    Oldhead, are you also against all vaccines, as this man has described as a dangerous conspiracy?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Certainly part of the universal trauma response to the the Covid 19 pandemic experience is watching NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE on a mass scale being carried out in real time. The current President and all his cowardly followers in political leadership must bear ultimate responsibility for these tragic losses.

    Many health experts have indicated that 80 to 90 percent of all the Covid 19 deaths could have been prevented with a simple willingness to follow a mask policy and social distancing. This means that over 160,000 deaths COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED.

    The silence in this comment section on these questions is deafening.

    How can we expect people to accept our devastating critique of the dangers and harm done by psychiatry and their Medical Model, when some would be leaders against psychiatric abuses CANNOT consistently apply the scientific method to analyzing the worldwide Covid 19 pandemic???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • H.S.

    This was a well written and heartfelt account of recovery from serious abuse by psychiatry and their entire Medical Model.

    It is inspiring that you are now turning your escape from psychiatric abuse into activism to help save others.

    I have one question to ask about your journey. In the period of time just prior to your first experience of “psychosis,” (and other similar episodes) did you (while being very excited about your dissertation breakthrough) experience any periods of insomnia or reduced sleep cycle.

    I ask this question, because even the most resilient person could experience extreme psychological distress, and/or “psychosis” from even short periods of very little sleep. Some people are more sensitive than others when they have bouts of a short sleep cycle.

    H.S., I wish you the best in your journey and hope you write more for MIA.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Someone Else

    You said:
    “… given the reality that all “corona” viruses are cold viruses. And Corona19 is not as lethal as the MSM is telling us…. I do think it was pushed to harm Trump…”

    Are you suggesting that Covid 19 is a “hoax” as Trump and his supporters have promoted, and that precautions against its spread are only meant to harm the president?

    You said:
    “But I don’t agree, “when death anxiety is unable to be managed effectively, it can lead to harmful ways of coping with stress, such as gargling bleach to try to avoid becoming infected,” is a bad idea…Since gargling with a concentrate of half water half hydrogen peroxide has been known as a reasonably wise idea, by the dentists, since my dentist grandfather’s time.”

    Are you suggesting that gargling with water and hydrogen peroxide is the equivalent of gargling with, or ingesting bleach into the human body?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Dylan

    This was a very good exposure of the addiction “treatment” industry in this country. Your “solution” part of the blog left a lot to be desired, and I will try to offer constructive feedback based on my experience.

    I worked for 22 years doing addiction work as an LMHC and CAS in a community “mental health” clinic. I fought all those years against the takeover by the Medical Model with its “disease”/drug based model of so-called “treatment,” which overall does far more harm to people than good.

    There are two major forms of “denial” in the world. One is: “I don’t have a problem,” and the other is: ” I have a problem. but it’s not really that bad.” Minimizing the nature of our problems with the Medical Model and their potential solutions, can become a roadblock to building a movement to end these forms of oppression.

    We are up against a very powerful SYSTEM here. Big Pharma and its colluding partner, psychiatry, have spent several hundred billion dollars (over the past 4 decades) with a major PR campaign promoting the “chemical imbalance” theory, the DSM, and psychiatric drugs as the solution to human angst. They have succeeded in brainwashing the vast majority of our population, including many people who pride themselves in being critical thinkers.

    The future of psychiatry, Big Pharma, and their “treatment” industry are now INSEPARABLE from the future of capitalism. The Medical Model shifts all the blame for society’s problems (which are rooted in an unjust class based profit system) back on so-called individual “genetic” human flaws. This has become a series of “genetic theories of original sin” to shift people’s attention away from the real source of their problems.

    Dylan, I applaud your recommendation of several ALTERNATIVE programs for better care for people with addiction problems. These kind of alternative programs need to be nurtured and expanded as much as possible. BUT we cannot be fooled into thinking that WITHOUT major system change we have any real possibility to dismantle the pervasiveness of the oppressive Medical Model.

    These type of alternative programs are continuously attacked and undermined in multiple ways, and we cannot underestimate the role the media plays (which is dominated by powerful institutions like Big Pharma and psychiatry) in overshadowing these programs with Medical Model propaganda.

    Dylan, I have several blogs here at MIA which further address my views on these questions in much greater depth. And I wrote a specific blog on the manufacture and maintenance of oppression with methadone and suboxone programs – see the link here: https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/04/manufacture-maintenance-oppression-profitable-business/

    I hope you are open to this feedback and will keep writing on these topics. You have much to offer the MIA readers.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Thanks James and Stuart for an interview filled with a boatload of important information to digest regarding the short term and long term risks and toxic effects of SSRI drugs.

    Stuart, I do not want to come off as nitpicking after such an important discussion. But you have clearly stated that the risks of SSRI drugs far outweigh their benfits, and you have been down in the trenches with hundreds of people who have suffered from these mind altering drugs.

    So my question is as follows: why after ALL THIS would you still want to acquiesce with Medical Model thinking and continue to refer to SSRI drugs as, “medicine?”

    Wouldn’t we all better serve potential victims in society, by breaking from the Medical Model and calling SSRI’s what they truly are – a mind altering psychiatric drug.

    And by referring to SSRI’s as “drugs” instead of “medicine,” wouldn’t you be FAR MORE consistent with your perspective on the science and morality of true “informed consent.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead labels my writings as “stoking Covid 19 hysteria,” for urging people to take the pandemic seriously, wear masks, and social distance.

    Since when is someone ‘”stoking hysteria” to acknowledge the danger of a disease that has killed over a 190 thousand people since last February, AND for the past month, 1000 people have died EVERY DAY.

    This is the equivalent of 3 jumbo jets crashing everyday. “Hysteria, you say???”

    Oldhead says:
    “it appears that COVID continues to subside in most of the US, and that any “2nd wave” will be comparatively mild. The US experience pretty much correlates with the European experience in terms of “cases” and deaths, despite constant implications that there is some great disparity.”

    Gee, this forecast sounds eerily similar to someone who said “it will simply disappear, just like a miracle,” and continues to minimize a disease that he actually knew was far more dangerous than the worst kinds of flu.

    I am completely dumbfounded and almost speechless at some of the comments I’ve recently been reading from certain people regarding Covid 19.

    I am afraid that some people have been drinking Peter Breggin’s Kool Aid. Is it time to consider that a former asset to the struggle against psychiatric abuse has now become a major liability?

    I am saddened by these transformations, but shocked into greater motivation to pick up the pace in future battles.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve and Nijinsky

    Steve, you have created a “straw man” argument for the view that you are criticizing here. NOWHERE have I EVER indicated that science has “sides.

    Science is NOT partial to a any “state” or “class” or any other social category in human society. It is an objective experimental process (free from all bias or partiality) to determine the structure and behavior of of various phenomena in the natural world.

    Steve, in your criticism of me somehow being “divisive” by asking people to “choose sides” on certain key issues, you are so far failing to identify a dangerous trend of “agnosticism” running rampant through some of the comments in this blog and other places on MIA and the internet.

    I now “triple down” on my above comment:

    “We DO have to CHOOSE in less than 60 days, whether or not we want Trump’s fascist agenda to continue in this country for another 4 years.”

    “AND we DO have to CHOOSE NOW whether or not we believe that Covid 19 is a real threat to humanity AND whether to wear a mask, social distance, and at some point (when we deem it to be safe) take a Covid 19 vaccine.”

    In this above statement (or anywhere else) where have I said science has “sides,” and how is urging people to take a stand on life and death questions in the world, somehow being “divisive.?”

    Of course we don’t yet know everything (or every nuance) about the nature of the Covid 19 virus or how best to protect humanity from it. BUT WE NOW KNOW ENOUGH LEGITIMATE SCIENCE TO MAKE SOME KEY DECISIONS ABOUT OUR BEHAVIOR.

    Agnosticism (or outright denial) on the questions of whether or not the virus is both REAL and DANGEROUS to humanity, and that MASKS and SOCIAL DISTANCING are necessary as a needed deterrent, can no longer be debated in such a way that it leads to INACTION or DISREGARD on these key questions. Do You agree, Steve?

    As to a vaccine, notice I said in my above quote that we need to act on taking a vaccine when “we deem it to be safe.” At some point in the near future we will have enough LEGITIMATE science to determine, when and if, it is safe to take a vaccine for Covid 19. BUT the question of whether or not most past vaccines (polio, small pox etc.), or the value of vaccines in general, SHOULD NOT and CANNOT be disputed using the scientific method.

    If a safe and effective vaccine is developed soon, and the organized anti-vaxx forces undermine society’s desire and choice to take it, this will cause more deaths and more human suffering. And their efforts to suppress a vaccine’s use MUST BE VIGOROUSLY OPPOSED!

    There is clearly a huge divide (that cuts across class lines) in society based on both ignorance and the related influence of nefarious political agendas on the question of Covid 19 AND the most essential behaviors to effectively combat it.

    For anyone here at MIA who claims some level of scientific and political awareness , THERE IS, INDEED, A “SIDE” TO CHOOSE. Tens of thousands (and perhaps even millions) of human lives may depend on our CHOICE on these questions.

    And remember, there is another powerful and well financed SIDE out there that is working to undermine all our efforts to effectively combat Covid 19. At this point in this battle over the truth on these critical questions, there is a moral imperative to CHOOSE SIDES. Agnosticism and/or “fence sitting” at this scientific and political juncture in history, will only lead to more human deaths and suffering.

    As to the second CHOICE referred to in my above comment: that is, can humanity afford to have four more years of Donald Trump? There is MORE THAN ENOUGH information and knowledge out there as to make a choice on that question.

    If we are unable to drive Trump out of office BEFORE the election, then there is a moral imperative to vote him out of office. The threat of outright fascism cannot be understated here. This is unlike any presidential election in my lifetime in terms of what is at stake here.

    As an anti-capitalist and pro-socialist activist since my early 20’s, I will be voting in my very first presidential election (that is a long discussion). I condemn both the Republican and Democratic parties as being oppressive representatives of the ruling class. But I WILL vote for Biden as VOTE AGAINST TRUMP in this election.

    We can no longer be agnostic or treat our current CHOICES here on Covid 19 or Trump as simply another exercise in “academics.” It is certainly now MORALLY APPROPRIATE to ask people “where do you stand on these two choices?” OR again use the title from the famous union and civil rights song, “WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON!”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    I am very surprised that you, also, would actually say my words (on choosing sides) are contributing to “divisiveness.”

    Political activists for important social change have, at certain junctures in history, OFTEN used a version of the phrase “which side are you on.”

    There is even a famous song for social change with that as its title.

    And I am very offended that you would then somehow put me in the same category as George Bush when I used those words. I hope you walk back that comment. Any comparisons to George Bush are defaming and incendiary in this political context.

    When I used the phrase “which side are you on” I was very specifically referring to behavior related to Covid 19 and the presidency of Donald Trump.

    We DO have to CHOOSE in less than 60 days, whether or not we want Trump’s fascist agenda to continue in this country for another 4 years.

    AND we DO have to CHOOSE NOW whether or not we believe that Covid 19 is a real threat to humanity AND whether to wear a mask, social distance, and at some point (when we deem it to be safe) take a Covid 19 vaccine.

    I double down on my above statement; there is no longer room for agnosticism on these questions, especially from those who claim some level of political awareness.

    It IS TIME to choose. There IS ENOUGH information and science out there to make such a choice.

    WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Nijinsky

    You have stated that I am “polarizing a discussion” and “…creating factions and riffs and cleavages and inciting divisions….”

    These are some pretty heavy accusations and negative descriptors that you have tagged me with. I have disagreed with some of your positions in this dialogue, but I have never resorted to this kind of language to describe you or your participation here.

    Nijinsky, the reality is that there was already some serious “polarizing” conditions in this country and around the world focused on how to deal with the Covid 19 pandemic. The “riffs,”factions” and “cleavages” have existed for some time. I have created none of this.

    I am NOT “inciting divisions,” because they already existed. I did not cause these divisions, I am merely CHOOSING SIDES on some very serious life and death decisions facing humanity in the coming months. And yes, choosing sides is sometimes very necessary at certain historical junctures in history. And we DO HAVE ENOUGH information at this point to make those decisions.

    Because you have implied that the “jury is out” so to speak on people like Del Bigtree, the Bollingers, and Peter Breggin as it relates to their positions on Covid 19 and support for Trump and his related positions. I did some more research and reading on these people and their positions on key issues. and DEFINITE conclusions can and must be drawn because of the importance of these issues.

    When it comes to Trump, Del Bigtree, the Bollingers, and Peter Breggin, they are CLEARLY Trump defenders AND enablers of the worst kind. Their websites and internet influence reach millions of people, and in today’s world their bad science could result in tens of thousands more deaths if people follow their advice. And this says nothing about their defense of a political leader who is promoting a fascist agenda, which is a far greater threat to humanity in the long run, than even their current positions on the pandemic.

    Del Bigtree (in the video referenced above) called Trump a “hero.” And Breggin and the Bollinger’s position on Covid 19 (and with other code words they use) are lockstep in line with Trump on several medical and political positions.

    The Bollingers who authored the book “The Truth About Cancer”, and who profit from speaking tours and promoting alternative supplements and fringe type treatments, are , indeed, dangerous charlatans. Nijinsky, read this review of their book on cancer which exposes their deceit and manipulation of fact and science. https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/RZQWNYKKSLVDH/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1401952232

    Nijinsky, you said:
    “…whether the Covid death rate is accurate again, HARPING on that, getting a whole planet obsessed with that, and overlooking more serious issues …all of those people have had to deal with the whole time, again is using Covid media as a coverup to neglect more serious issues. Vaccinating everyone in Africa isn’t going to magically feed people or clean the environment there, nor stop wars for example, which is just ONE area.”

    People WILL NOT be able to address, let alone solve, “more serious issues” in their lives, if they don’t FIRST SURVIVE the Covid 19 pandemic. Yes, i am “harping” on critical life and death questions facing humanity, and i make no apologies for that.

    There is ENOUGH information and truth out there at this time to make critical decisions about a direction to take on Covid 19 AND Donald Trump. And those decisions will affect humanity for years to come.

    These questions can no longer be treated as simply “academic.” There IS ALREADY a very real divide out there, and it IS time to decide. I’ve made my choice – what about you – WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Nijinsky and Steve

    You raise some interesting points here, and I am taking them into consideration as to how best to approach this controversial topic in the future.

    To first clarify the use of certain terms: First as to the definition of “conspiracy theory.”

    Wikipedia (which I believe has some merit here) states the following:

    “A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation,[2][3] when other explanations are more probable.[4] The term has a pejorative connotation, implying that the appeal to a conspiracy is based on prejudice or insufficient evidence.[5]

    “Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth,[5][6] whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved.[7”

    This definition makes me conclude that there are, indeed, real “conspiracies” in the world, BUT “conspiracy THEORIES” have taken on a whole different meaning in society. They are theories that are based mainly on *faith* and cannot be proved or disproved (for some people) because of a process of “circular reasoning” that many people employ for different reasons.

    Many writers about “conspiracy theories” argue that the more they are “mocked” and “ridiculed” the more those people who are operating mainly on “faith” (not facts) will double down in their belief of these particular theories.

    Now in general I do believe there is a place for sarcasm (at times) and ridicule for certain nonsensical and extremely harmful ideas in society. But I agree that there are better techniques to use in discussions and debates that are more effective. Many writers on this subject say the best technique to refute a “conspiracy theory,” is to show how it specifically (using facts and data) causes harm in the world.

    So therefore, I will still correctly use the label “conspiracy theory,” at times, to describe certain “dangerous” theories circulating in society, BUT I will avoid using the term “nonsense” in my descriptors. AND I will attempt to show, in the real world (using science and facts), how these “conspiracy theories” are causing great harm to people.

    As to the use of the term “hoax,” I have NOT used that term as critical descriptor. However, I have only pointed out that many conspiracy theorists (and people like Trump) have used that term to discredit the scientists and medical spokespeople who have declared the Covid 19 pandemic as a serious threat to humanity.

    And yes, Nijinsky, we DO need to be careful when challenging the beliefs and thought processes of certain people, especially those people who are (or have in the past)) experienced extreme forms of psychological distress. And yes, there are very real (justifiable) reasons why some people may have certain thoughts that seem odd, or not based on consensus reality, and they must be explored with great respect.

    So while I will definitely take your caution here into consideration in my future writing, I do want to make a distinction between people with very little power or voice in society, and those (like the Bollingers) who publicly form organizations and internet websites (often promoting “for profit” alternative medical treatments).

    These are individuals who have the power and means to influence large numbers of people either for “good” OR very bad results, when it comes to medical treatment, or life and death type advice about the potential dangers of the Covid 19 virus.

    Here, when it involves people like the Bollingers, Del Bigtree, Peter Breggin, Trump and all his medical spokes people etc. etc., we must hold them to a much higher standard. Their words AND theories can literally mean life and death for large numbers of people, and it is fair game (and a moral imperative on our part) to analyze and sharply criticize (and occasionally mock) them when the situation demands such action. And I believe this is one of those times.

    The Covid 19 pandemic is exactly one of these historical moments where we must take dramatic steps to save lives. As much as I distrust ruling class representatives who are asking, and/or, mandating masks and social distancing, in this situation their sound advice cuts across class lines. This would be true (in a similar way) if the world needed to take action against an incoming asteroid that threatened the earth’s extinction.

    Yes, we must make sure they (the ruling classes) don’t use these situations to further consolidate control and power over people, but there are serious existential threats that require universal cooperation on the planet, and I believe this is one of those situations.

    Here again, we also must look at who are the most vulnerable victims of Covid 19 pandemic on the planet. It is people of color, and those who form the under classes in society. It is likely that Covid 19 will devastate countries in Africa and other poor Asian and Latin American countries.

    And Nijinsky, I DO share your concerns about ALL the other problems facing humanity (diet, trauma and other health concerns etc) and how they intersect with the Covid 19 pandemic.

    This is why I have often written here at MIA that the biggest impediment to human progress on the planet is the “for profit” capitalist system. I have even stated that I do not not believe we cannot truly end psychiatry, and all forms of psychiatric abuse, until we move on to a socialist type system in the world.

    Steve and Nijinsky, I have learned from this discussion. The bottom line to my current thoughts are as follows:

    1) The Covid 19 pandemic is real, and unprecedented efforts must be taken planet wide to save lives.

    2) Efforts to combat the pandemic cuts across class lines. People should be wary of those in power in these times, but NOT hesitate to follow medical and political advice (even from people we would normally distrust) when it can truly be proven to save lives.

    3) People in power, and organizations that declare the Covid 19 pandemic a “hoax,” or discourage safety measures that could save thousands (and perhaps millions) of lives should be sharply criticized and debunked, using science and facts to show how this will cause great harm and suffering to humanity.

    4) While we must avoid turning every discussion here at MIA into a Covid 19 debate, we CANNOT wall off this pandemic threat to humanity from the vital issues we face when it comes to the oppressive Medical Model. These issues do insect on many levels, and we must find the right “balance” for how to appropriately draw the very real links between these issues.

    5) i think we all agree that *real* science is under attack in society. MIA’s mission includes upholding and fighting for *real* SCIENCE and SOCIAL JUSTICE in the world. We cannot just fight vigorously over HERE against pseudo-science in the Medical Model, and, at the same time, let PSEUDO-SCIENCE and related conspiracy theories run rampant in other parts of society. If we build a wall separating these two different (but connected) arenas we will hopelessly FAIL at our mission to end all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Nijinsky

    My response to you was NOT any kind of criticism of your positions here at MIA. In fact, I took the time to respond to you because of my past respect for your contributions here at MIA going way back to when you were a major participant in a high level of discussion under a blog I authored on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.

    My response was focused on trying DEFEND my use of certain negative descriptors of what I view to be certain dangerous distortions of science and related political trends that seem to be spreading on the internet.

    I only chose to state my overall positions on psychiatry and capitalism to provide more info and context (if you were somehow not previously aware of them) as to where I’m coming from, and the prism from which I view things in the world.

    I agree that we can learn things from many alternative perspectives on health care, even those we may choose to ultimately reject for ourselves. And yes, I often learn the most when I read quite polarized perspectives on various topics. And yes, I may choose to retain a single nugget or two from a theoretical perspective that I overall strongly disagree with, and believe to be scientifically wrong.

    However, there does come a time when actual scientific theories will be put to the test in the real world, and dire (life and death) circumstance, such as a dangerous pandemic, demands a specific course of action be taken to save lives.

    It is during these times that we must do our best to make the most decisive decisions based on the best science available, and take actions that will benefit all of humanity on our entire planet.

    In an attempt to go back to some of the key aspects for why I chose to use some strong negative descriptors for some of “Elan’s” comments and links that he promoted, I would like to focus on a few key questions. And Nijinsky, these questions are not directed only to you, but to all others in this discussion,

    When is it appropriate (if ever) to draw a conclusion that a so-called scientific theory is “nonsense” and “dangerous” and/or a “conspiracy theory?”

    Is it fair to be highly alarmed and use negative descriptors towards authors and theories that promote, as fact, that only 6000 people have died in the U.S. from Covid 19?

    Is it fair to be highly alarmed and use negative type descriptors towards those who would make key (possibly life and death) political and medical decisions about mask wearing, social gatherings, and the means by which we achieve “herd immunity” in society, BASED on the theory that only 6000 people have died from Covid 19 , and that the dangerous prognostications related to Covid 19 might be,in fact, a “hoax?”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Elan

    Thanks for answering the question.

    You said: “Conspiracy theories aren’t theories when they are true.”

    Yes, you are correct that there are, indeed, some real conspiracies in the world, or at the very least, major forms of collusion between very dangerous institutions. This is certainly true when looking at psychiatry and Big Pharma, and also the FDA’s connection to the Medical Model.

    BUT, Elan, you posted a link that promotes the theory that ONLY 6000 people have died from Covid 19 in the U.S.

    Do you want to stand by that figure as representing true science?

    Do you not see the potential harm in promoting that statistic if, indeed, it is wildly inaccurate from the actual number of 185,000 people, or more dying?

    How can I take your other comments seriously at MIA, if you won’t retract your promotion of the link that grossly minimizes the medical dangers and harm done by the Covid 19 pandemic?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Nijinsky

    If you read some of my past blogs and comments, you will know clearly that I am a committed anti-psychiatry and anti-capitalist activist.

    I also believe that the FDA is a thoroughly corrupt institution, and the CDC is allowing its mission and science to be negatively influenced and swayed by the Trump political agenda.

    I believe I have a very healthy skepticism and critical approach to all of western medicine,especially based on the fact that it takes place within a for profit capitalist system.

    In my lifetime, I have had 3 different types of cancer, and during one of those cancers I had 2 rounds of chemo. And believe me, I read every science article and journal available before I decided on my course of treatment.

    I, also, take supplements and believe there is a role for certain (well vetted) alternative forms of medicine and treatment.

    I stand by my negative descriptors within the above comments. I could never EVER trust any alternative medical advocates like the Bollingers, who wrote the article that allegedly states that way under 10 thousand people died of Covid 19. Is this not another way of calling the Covid 19 pandemic a “hoax?”

    And we do know what happened to Steve Jobs (the Apple creator) when he sought alternative medical treatment for (early stage) pancreatic cancer, and then seriously delayed surgery and possible chemo therapy to treat his cancer.

    Given the oppressive system we live within at this time in history, we must carefully evaluate ALL the science being promoted in society. Some of the science (and the scientists who create the studies) is very legitimate and carried out with integrity and great purpose, AND it should be believed and followed in the real world.

    Of course, other science and scientists cannot be trusted and should not be followed. But we ALL must VERY carefully siphon our way through this morass. And this requires much work and study on our part.

    We should all hesitate to jump on any political bandwagon that appears to have, on its surface, an anti-system cover, but when looked at more closely is serving some type of reactionary political agenda.

    The link referenced above by “Elan,” is not only pure nonsense when it comes to truth seeking, but highly dangerous in the middle of a serous pandemic. People will, and have died because they followed incorrect science related to the Covid 19 pandemic.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Conspiracy Theory Alert!

    I watched parts of the video posted by “Elan.” This is pure conspiracy theory nonsense that basically promotes the view that Covid 19 is a “hoax.” It is in its disgusting essence, just more pro Trump propaganda that supports an anti-science and politically fascist agenda. These are very dangerous theories that have very real world consequences.

    Elan is posting many comments here at MIA that are glorifying the anti-vacine movement leader Del Bigtree. He is neither a doctor or a scientist, but rather a dangerous demagogue who is now making lots of money (on speaking tours) stoking the flames of every possible conspiracy theory related to the Covid 19 pandemic.

    Part of Mad in America’s mission is to distinguish real science from pseudo-science, especially as it relates to today’s Medical Model for “mental health.” It requires a serious effort on our part to sort through all the vast amount of scientific questions in society and determine real truth from falsehood. Sometimes this is not an easy process . It is grossly irresponsible for people to advance conspiracy theories with NO substantial science to back up these wild claims.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I_e_cox

    You said: ” Do we really need the incentive of high profits to create good medicines?”

    I believe there are tens of thousands of scientists (and young people who want to be scientists) who are purely motivated by the wonderment of science and discovery, AND definitely want their scientific creations to benefit humanity.

    The profit motive actually distorts and corrupts science in ways that that seriously thwarts human efforts to advance our understanding of the world. Billions of dollars every year are spent researching and creating drugs that have no benefit for humanity, and are actually showing evidence of harmful effects.

    Because Big Pharma CEO’s are purely motivated by the bottom line of profit (otherwise their job for the coming year is in jeopardy), they will do whatever it takes to continue promoting and producing certain drugs despite early knowledge that their initial investment was a complete failure.

    Image how totally unleashed young scientists would be if this entire process was driven by a desire to make the world a safer and better place. Drug creations that did not work, or were unsafe, would be quickly abandoned, and all investment of time and money would be redirected in a different direction.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob, well done!

    Thanks for this well researched and powerful exposure of the FDA and its incestuous connections to Big Pharma. All of which leads to an untold number of human casualties and an enormous amount of physical and psychological harm to millions of people.

    It is difficult to decide which quote from this exposure to highlight, because it is packed with so many indictments of a thoroughly corrupt system at every level.

    This is one quote that stands out:

    “All of this served to corrupt the FDA. In a 2006 survey of FDA scientists, one-fifth responded that they had “been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or their conclusions in an FDA scientific document.” Forty percent said they feared retaliation for voicing safety concerns in public.”

    It is safe to assume (due to the issue of fear of retaliation) that the actual numbers are MUCH HIGHER when it come to direct efforts by Big Pharma to corrupt the research process into most drug approvals.

    And when you look at the hundreds of billions of dollars that are at stake in all these transactions (with the multitudes of mergers and corporate buy outs, along with the swapping of jobs between pharma and the FDA), we must ask the question that is the one immense “elephant in the room” that simply cannot be ignored:

    Given the pervasiveness of the capitalist profit incentive in almost every aspect and transaction affecting the scientific process of drug approvals, is it even conceivable that you could EVER have a fair AND safe approval process within a profit based capitalist system?

    Obviously, ALL such drug research and approval needs to be completely INDEPENDENT from the marketplace. But is this type of reform really possible within a capitalist based system given the pervasiveness of the influence of the profit motive and its connection to the corruption process?

    I say the answer is a resounding, NO! The System will tolerate these type of political exposures in the “market place of ideas” as long as it doesn’t FUNDAMENTALLY challenge the continuation of the status quo.

    While these type of political exposure are incredibly valuable to educate people and rally forces to oppose this blatant type of death causing corruption, there is now a clear MORAL IMPERATIVE that we all have in the growing political crises facing humanity at this junction in human history.

    That moral imperative REQUIRES US to always include some associative exposure of the capitalist profit motive and it pervasive NEGATIVE influence on every human transaction in all realms of society, especially as it affects both science and medicine.

    To do anything less, is to fail our moral obligation to speak the truth, and face the actual systemic impediments to all human progress. “Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!”

    Carry on, Bob!

    Report comment

  • Sam

    Thanks for the response.

    I was mainly referring to the way Oldhead chose to describe this group. He said:

    “I repeat, to construe these two articles as anti-psychiatry or abolitionist in any way makes a mockery of what survivor-based AP organizing seeks to achieve.”

    I believe this to be a grossly unfair way to describe this group. And this approach in no way helps us understand who are our real friends and enemies in this world, let alone how to find ways to unite people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead said:

    “…but you don’t question why we would even try to alter the immune systems we are borne with, which have more innate knowledge about protecting us than scientists may ever acquire.”

    Is this not the essence of an anti-science position relative to Covid 19 vaccines and other medical treatments?

    I ask: why did humanity develop a polio vaccine or a vaccine for smallpox, or various types of cancer treatments etc.etc.?

    In these medical situations, apparently the “innate knowledge” of the human immune system was not up to the task of defending us against these diseases, and the power of human developed science was necessary.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Peter Breggin may have made a contribution to exposing the dangers of the Medical Model over several decades, but I would NEVER follow ANY of his political advice, or ANY of his medical advice related to Covid 19.

    Peter Breggin has become a shrill for the Trump/Pence regime in promoting their cold hearted anti-science approach to the Covid pandemic.

    Here is just one quote from his website about temporarily closing down the U.S. economy to save lives:

    “We ask, “So what?” Was there ever any doubt that tens of millions—not a mere hundred thousand a day—would contract this highly infectious disease that mercifully rarely does serious harm to anyone but the elderly and immune compromised? This is clearly a case of the Deep State against America and our nation’s vigorous attempts to quickly recover from the draconian COVID-19 lockdown of the spring of 2020.”

    Everyone, listen up! Don’t forget that Peter Breggin took a major political turn to the Right Wing following 9/11. He was a frequent guest on the nationally syndicated radio talk show hosted by Michael Savage. Michael Savage is one of the most vile promoters of fascism and racism on the radio airways.

    Let’s not forget that Scientology is capable of coming up with a few descent exposures of psychiatry and psychiatric abuse, but who really wants to follow ANY other parts of their belief system?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said:

    “All any of us can do is speculate about how the next few months will turn out, but I believe we will be pleasantly surprised, except for those who have a motive in keeping the fear level up.”

    This quote is unfortunately very similar to the essence of Trump’s anti-science and wishful thinking approach to the pandemic. And we sadly see where this has led to tens of thousands of more deaths in this country. And this will only get WORSE if he is not removed from power.

    Where is the science to back up your view that we will be “pleasantly surprised” in the coming months?

    And who are you saying “…want to keep the fear level up.”

    Fear is an entirely appropriate response to Covid 19.

    And those people not wearing masks are exhibiting the worst kind of stupidity (seemingly endemic to the U.S.), when it is so viciously combined with the arrogance of American national chauvinism.

    This stubborn promotion of (an adherence to) an anti-science way of thinking, and the fear mongering towards people of color and those who speak other languages, is just more of the growing fascist takeover of the Trump/Pence regime.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sam

    Yes, there is some lack of clarity and contradictions in their writings, but let’s look at the sentences you have the most issues with.

    “The abolition of psychiatry does not mean that no one is allowed to identify with psychiatric diagnoses”

    Here, I do NOT believe they are supporting the DSM. I think they recognize that (in the immediate aftermath of a post psychiatry world) some people will still choose (perhaps for a period of time) to identify as, let’s say, “bi-polar.” And that it would be incorrect to CONDEMN them for this. It will probably take many decades to completely root out the damage done by the pervasiveness of Medical Model thinking. After all, they have literally spent several hundred billion dollars in the world’s single greatest PR campaign regarding the hoax of “chemical imbalances,” DSM diagnoses, and other Medical Model propaganda.

    Even now we have some people who are quite critical of the Medical Model who still want to hang on to, or “own” in a new way, some DSM diagnosis. There have been personal stories like this published at MIA where people try to turn a DSM diagnosis into some type of “new” thing. Of course, I’m with you and believe this language must be thoroughly exposed and (over time) completely rooted out in our society.

    Now let’s look at the other quotes you had the most issues with:

    ” We are not anti-medication, and do not advocate people stop taking medications that are useful to them.
    We believe, however, that the creation and evolution of psych medications could feasibly be taken over by post-psychiatric entities that recognize/build upon the small wisdom that has incidentally come out of this violent structure.”

    I believe there main point here is that people SHOULD NOT be made to feel LESS THAN because they still think they need or depend on a psych drugs to cope with a very stressful and oppressive world. It will probably take several decades in a post psychiatry world to slowly root out people’s dependency on these type of drugs.

    And we cannot forget that there are MAJOR withdrawal issues with coming off of these drugs, and it can sometimes take people several years to be successful in totally becoming drug free. We must have compassion and support for people going through these difficult struggles, not ever fall into some type of “pill shaming” them.

    And, in particular, the phrase “…post-psychiatric entities that recognize/build upon the small wisdom that has incidentally come out of this violent structure.”

    Here they are clearly describing the Medical Model and psychiatry as a “violent structure,” BUT indicating that even violent structures or oppressive institutions can by “accident” or “incidentally” create something that may have a useful, or helpful, purpose for some people. Here I am thinking that they might be referring to the creation and use of so-called “anti-psychotic” drugs, or perhaps, even Benzos.

    “Anti-psychotic drugs” for a small sample of people can be helpful as a very short term aid for some one experiencing an extreme psychological crisis. The same could be said for a very brief use of a drug like a benzodiazepine, when some one is experiencing very intense and overwhelming emotions, and are totally unable to relax and go to sleep. Even after psychiatry and the Medical Model is abolished, along with capitalist system that created and sustains these institutions, these type of drugs may have a very selective use in rare situations.

    Obviously, we know the long term use of these drugs are quite harmful on many physical and psychological levels. And psychiatry and their Medical Model must be condemned, organized against, and ultimately abolished for crimes related to the prolific prescribing of these drugs around the world.

    So how I interpret their use of the word “wisdom,” is that even out of something very violent and oppressive occasionally in history a tiny particle of “wisdom” is learned that may be useful for future generations. Now, I would probably choose to use different phrases and terminology to make these type of points in analyzing the aftermath of a world oppressed by psychiatry, but there is NOTHING intrinsically wrong with the points this group is making.

    AND MOST DEFINITELY, there is NO REASON to denigrate or condemn this group for the heart of their message and their purpose for organizing against the Medical Model. We should support this group and reach out to them for further dialogue and opportunities to unite in our common struggle against psychiatry and the oppressive Medical Model.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead states: “I repeat, to construe these two articles as anti-psychiatry or abolitionist in any way makes a mockery of what survivor-based AP organizing seeks to achieve. The “peer” industry is NOT the anti-psychiatry movement.”

    I would repeat (from my above comment):

    “To denigrate or condemn this group is a fundamental error in political orientation.

    “This group in a very positive way puts the struggle against psychiatry and psychiatric oppression in the context of the history of capitalism and imperialism, AND links its history to slavery, racial oppression, and the prison system.”

    Shouldn’t every effort be made to UNITE with this group of anti-psychiatry activists, while also struggling with some of their “peer” based language?

    Should we not have a fundamental orientation of “unite all who can be united” as an organizing approach to building a movement against psychiatric oppression?

    And when important political differences emerge in discussions in the MIA comment section, why is it now appropriate to SUDDENLY advocate for those discussions to somehow continue in some PRIVATE forum?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead stated the following:

    “Richard knows he as a professional has no business trying to dictate how AP survivors conduct their politics. His comments also show why it is necessary for survivors to have their own AP organizations based on their own experiences.”

    The comment section at MIA is meant to have important dialogue around critical questions confronting ALL of us as it pertains to the Medical Model and its connection to an increasingly chaotic and oppressive world.

    Oldhead chooses to now emphasize the contradictions between survivors and professionals as a way to avoid and cut off having principled dialogue over how to evaluate an important emerging anti-psychiatry group on college campuses.

    Ironically enough here, I am the one who is DEFENDING an important SURVIVOR based organization against unfair and inaccurate criticism.

    Long before I became a counselor in a community based “mental health” clinic, I was an an anti-capitalist revolutionary activist. For several decades I fought against psychiatry’s Medical Model takeover of a community support system.

    Psychiatry and their Medical Model is now a major pillar propping up and enforcing an oppressive class based capitalist system. The struggle against psychiatry and their Medical Model (LED by psych survivors) is a critically important conduit of resistance and activism against capitalist oppression.

    EVERYONE (survivor and non-survivor) should be intensely invested and concerned about advancing the cause against psychiatry and all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sam

    You said: “Yes, people can take the psych drugs. But what are they made for? That “mental illness”? Or what words to we insert for those who choose. Can they also choose their own descriptors/dagnosis of why they chose? Or does the guy in the white coat give his invented garble.”

    Yes, I believe it is necessary and appropriate to challenge the use of all Medical Model language, and especially the use of DSM diagnoses. But we also need to recognize and support the core arguments and essence of certain emerging political organizations, especially when they correctly combine an anti-psychiatry and anti-capitalist critique.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • And just clarify my above point about psych drugs and people’s right to use them if they choose to:

    while they are mind altering substances, they are some of the most dangerous mind altering substances available for human consumption. In most cases they are toxic to the human body and brain function, and have major complications with withdrawal.

    And while some people MAY possibly achieve some very short term benefit, there is no scientific evidence that they work in the ways that Big Pharma advertises them with their hundreds of billions of dollars of PR propaganda. And these drugs have documented evidence of very negative long term consequences.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sam

    Yes, you are right in what you are saying.

    We should never call psych drugs “medications” because this will only validate the unscientific and oppressive Medical Model that this terminology reinforces.

    Psych drugs are nothing more than mind altering substances, just like pot and other street drugs.

    This does not mean they should never be used, or that that they might not provide some type of short term positive effect on someone’s psychological distress. However, we must be clear that they ARE NOT “medicating” some type of brain “disease” or “disorder.”

    It is quite fine that people raised questions about some of the language used by the Project LENS group, but why trash the central core of their very radical critique of psychiatry and capitalist society?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead and others

    “Though psychiatry is a fundamentally violent system, there are some psychiatric drugs that are effective for some folks (though the structural, cultural trauma creating distressed manifestations of neurodivergence needs to be prioritized). We are not anti-medication, and do not advocate people stop taking medications that are useful to them. We believe, however, that the creation and evolution of psych medications could feasibly be taken over by post-psychiatric entities that recognize/build upon the small wisdom that has incidentally come out of this violent structure.”

    You said the following about the above statement: “This is NOT an “abolitionist” position, or even an anti-psychiatry position, it is a pro-Pharma position.”

    There is nothing fundamentally “pro-pharma” or anti-abolitionist in their above statement.

    People taking psych drugs should have a RIGHT to continue taking them if they choose. And some people DO report some benefits from taking them, especially in the short term. AND even though the fundamental history of the development and use of these drugs has been oppressive, the fact that they might have some very selective use in the future, does NOT mean that this group is supporting the continuation of psychiatric oppression.

    This group, Project LENS (I think that is their name), is a very positive group that should be SUPPORTED as part of the anti-psychiatry trend. There are some of their choices of language regarding “peers” and other choices of things to emphasize that I might quibble with, but this group MUST and SHOULD be supported.

    To denigrate or condemn this group is a fundamental error in political orientation.

    This group in a very positive way puts the struggle against psychiatry and psychiatric oppression in the context of the history of capitalism and imperialism, AND links its history to slavery, racial oppression, and the prison system.

    An anti-psychiatry movement CANNOT and SHOULD NOT be built in a cocoon, separate from the social and political realities facing people in today’s world. Psychiatry, in today’s world, is inseparable from the profit based capitalist system, and the future and destiny of these two institutional entities are clearly intertwined.

    To downplay or avoid this reality would be a huge political mistake, and would hold us back from advancing our cause against all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Patrick

    This was a very good blog contribution to MIA, on a very important topic of what I refer to as “genetic theories of original sin.” That is a phrase originated by the famous sociologist, Ashley Montagu.

    I have a few issues on which I would like to challenge you, if you you are open to critical feedback.

    You said: “The only correlation they found was with a diagnostic category they called “schizophreniform disorders,” an ill-defined grab-bag of complaints invented solely for the purposes of the study.”

    Why do you believe it is correct to put in quotations, “schizophreniform disorders,” but yet you use the terms “schizophrenia” and “mental illness” WITHOUT quotations. Wouldn’t your critical phrase “an ill-defined grab-bag of complaints invented solely for the purposes of the study.” apply to those equally as oppressive Medical Model kinds of terminology which ALSO have NO legitimate scientific basis?

    And in your above reply (in the comment section) you use the phrase in my emphasized caps “Sure, people vary in their SUSCEPTIBILITY TO TRAUMA, and hereditary factors no doubt play a role in that.”

    Isn’t it true that trauma is an “equal opportunity” experience, that is, no one invites it to happen because of some so-called genetic predisposition. This kind of concept could potentially take us down a rabbit hole of victims “attracting” and somehow being responsible for their own trauma.

    Are you not really speaking here about someone’s REACTION to trauma experiences and the possible genetic susceptibility to a more severe chain of negative outcomes? And even this type of so-called genetic predisposition is extremely difficult to examine in a valid scientific way, aside from the fact that it is a total waste of human resources and time.

    I often use the following analogy: what if someone were to kidnap and torture you and me for many hours, and you end up (in your mind) “splitting off” into some realm of “psychosis” after 22 hours of torture and I “split off” after 19 hours of torture. Why should society be spending billions of dollars trying to determine why there was a 3 hour difference between you and me “splitting off.” Wouldn’t it be more wise and economical to find out why torture was going on in the first place, and then find a way to end it?

    Clearly I’m raising a rhetorical question here to emphasize the point that “genetic theories of original sin” are being use by the “powers that be” to avoid ANY critical analysis of the inherently *sick* societies we live in. They would much rather have us focus on some set of so-called inherent genetic human flaws, rather than challenge (and dismantle) systemic oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rose

    Great blog!

    Did any one of these dozen psychiatrists ever ask you about events in your current life or past that might be causing the anxiety, or did they all just quickly diagnose and drug you?

    Your story once again reaffirms just how oppressive the Medical Model is in today’s world

    Since you play guitar and sing songs, check out my music video “Benzo Blue.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYuhNEn2OKw

    Many benzo survivors have found it to be cathartic in a good way. All the best in your journey’

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rachel777

    You have been reading our comments (myself and Oldhead’s) for several years now.Thanks for validating that we are neither guilty of “bullying” or “tyranny” at MIA.

    I don’t believe this discussion was taken “personally” by any particular person, but rather there are “political” ways to avoid very difficult, but vitally important historical questions about socialist revolution.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To be dismissive of the importance of the lessons of the Russian and Chinese revolutions, can be troubling and problematic when trying develop strategies for a new round of socialist type revolutions.

    And to avoid using the word and concept of “communism” could potentially lead to repeating the same errors of past revolutions where some leaders chose to STOP the progress towards a truly classless society, and try remain ONLY in the socialist stage.

    “Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead is absolutely correct here.

    Socialism is a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. Communism is, by definition, a classless society which would require many generations of struggle and education advancing to full equality between all segments within society.

    By definition “socialism” still contains many of the “birthmarks” of the old order of things, including all the remnants of a class based system. You CANNOT immediately create a true classless society overnight.

    To make a principle of avoiding the term “communism” and thus remaining in the transitory stage of socialism, is a recipe for defeat, and this is exactly one of the reasons that prior attempts at socialist revolutions actually failed.

    Susan makes the following statement in her last comment:

    “One reason why the American left is so weak is because of internecine fighting that builds nothing.”

    This statement is not true and avoids the reality that almost the entire Left made fatal political line errors in summing up the positive and negative aspects of the previous attempts at socialist revolution in Russia and China.These are exactly the important questions Susan has avoided in these discussions at MIA.

    These revolutions failed due to external pressures from capitalist countries AND internal errors of aborting the on-going progress towards slowly eliminating the class based “birthmarks” from the old order. That is, there were so-called leaders WITHIN the communist parties who wanted to retain the old class based privileges and short circuit the progress towards a truly classless society.

    These so-called communist leaders ended up engineering Right Wing coups within these genuine socialist countries, REVERSING the progress towards a classless society.

    This is something that MAO wrote extensively about in his latter years before his death in 1977. He launched the Cultural Revolution, because he knew that Right Wing elements within communist party had gained in strength. And sure enough, upon his death in 1977 a Right Wing coup occurred, and the genuine Left within the Party, including Mao’s wife, were arrested.

    Very quickly following this Right Wing coup, socialist institutions within the Chinese society were dismantled and China was turned into a raging capitalist country seeking to compete with all the Western powers.

    Failure to correctly understand the lessons of the past dooms us to repeat them in the future. Interestingly enough, the American communist, Bob Avakian, who Susan totally dismissed as a “top down leader,” was one of the very first communist leaders on the planet, who CORRECTLY summed up that the Chinese revolution had been reversed.

    I*ve have not seen any attempt at someone being self-critical about using the term ”bullying” to describe myself and Oldhead. Now I am reading a comment that suggests we are instead being “tyrannical.”
    What else could the following statement be trying to say:
    “We must give everyone the room to choose how, when, and with whom they share their thoughts. Anything less is TYRANNY [my emphasis], and we have more than enough of that already.”

    I still hope that others following this discussion will engage on these important question of making genuine systemic change in the world, and finding the best strategies for doing so. While methods of communication within the Left are important, we can NEVER minimize or underestimate the absolute importance of having a correct political line and summation of past attempts at revolution.

    And to label people who want to have such a discussion as “bulling,” is counter productive and will move us AWAY from getting closer to making real systemic change in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • And I will add the following point.

    Mad in America (MIA) has a pretty strict policy on maintaining “civil discourse” within its comment section of each and every blog. This is a policy I support and make every attempt to follow.

    Susan, for you to accuse myself and Oldhead of “bullying” (which I do not believe can be proven or defended) is to be implicitly criticizing the MIA moderators of tolerating “bullying” in the MIA comment section.

    We live in a world today where a fascist type president (Trump) is often (rightly) accused of “bullying” to promote a vicious Right Wing agenda. Susan, you must know the true power of the words you have chosen to use in labeling our legitimate questioning as a form of “bullying.”

    I believe the MIA moderators saw our comments and questions, rightfully, as a legitimate part of the political discourse on such hugely prescient issues of major “system change” in the world.

    Susan, a major component of being a true socialist/communist revolutionary leader in the world, is to engage in the process of criticism/self-criticism. Are you prepared to accept the “self-criticism” in this particular discussion?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Susan

    Rather than continue what could have been a very necessary and fruitful discussion about the way forward for humanity, YOU have now become the person who has chosen to throw around very highly charged language and labels to disparage our attempts to seek out a deeper understanding of the historical and political essence of your outlook on socialist revolution.

    You have just labeled our attempts at discussion as follows:

    “…your responses to my comments display the kind of negative tone that turns people off to discussions about socialism.”

    “… I answered and was resoundingly criticized… I recognize bullying when I encounter it.”

    “I was hounded to elaborate my views…”

    “…pissing contests over who is right do not clarify; they alienate. This is a key difference between top-down socialists, who claim a monopoly on what is right…”

    If you remember, I FIRST asked you a simple question about what socialist trend you aligned yourself with, and if you were aware of the contributions of Bob Avakian towards advancing socialist/communist theory. It was then YOUR four sentence response to this question that contained the essence of what could be described as a highly “negative tone.” or perhaps more accurately, a highly “negative dismissal.”

    Susan, in just those four sentences you totally dismissed the five and a half decades of Bob Avakian’s contributions to socialist/communist theory and practice, AND you NEGATIVELY dismissed the historical accomplishments and sacrifices of hundreds of millions of people (in Russia and China) engaged in this planet’s FIRST attempts (warts and all) at socialist revolution.

    Why is it so surprising that we might choose to CHALLENGE some of these highly negative dismissals of very important people and historical events. And when we questioned (and asked for clarification) of some of your terminology such “top down leadership” and “managerial class.” and your avoidance of the word “communism,” you are now accusing us of engaging in “pissing contests” and “bullying.”

    Given the extremely high stakes in a very volatile world where there is such extreme poverty, threats of world war, climate destruction, racial upheaval. and a worldwide health crisis (all things, Susan, that you have highlighted in your own writings). the issue of political strategies for a massive systemic change (socialist revolution) is a LIFE AND DEATH type discussion. It is a “life and death” type discussion affecting the future for several billion people on this planet.

    Anyone truly serious about fighting to transform an oppressive capitalist/imperialist world to a socialist one, would be MORE than happy AND WILLING to engage in answering and discussing a few pointed questions about political strategy and how best to sum up previous historical attempts at revolution.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Snead

    Great blog and powerful story of discovery and redemption.

    I think history will reveal that most experiences with some form of “psychosis” is connected to childhood trauma, especially sexual abuse.

    As you were telling your story of very elevated type feelings when you first began to come to terms with your trauma history (just prior to be hospitalized), you did not mention your sleep pattern. But I would guess that these elevated type feelings were most likely leading to periods of very little sleep. This can become one of the primary reasons for anyone (trauma history or not) to lose touch with consensus reality. And then once in the hands of today’s Medical Model (disease/drug based), things can quickly spin out of control in a very bad direction, and go down rabbit hole of oppressive “treatment.”

    And think about this for a moment, is it really that unusual (given the power of religion in society) for someone to believe they may be the New Messiah when coming to terms with profound sexual abuse trauma. In this situation one becomes deeply aware of how they were the focus of such horrible treatment on earth, that perhaps their own suffering might be that which saves others from such treatment – hence the connection to Jesus “dying and being resurrected for all our “sins.”

    Interestingly enough, the whole religious concept of “sin” is actually one of society’s deep sources of shame and guilt that creates powerful levels of stress and self hatred in the world. Which actually then becomes an initiating source of a desire to move away from consensus reality for some people being push over the edge by these overwhelming emotional feelings.

    And my final thought, is that sometimes analyzing and fighting back against the Medical Model that causes so much harm and pain for people, can also be very therapeutic and rewarding. That personal experience could teach others about the harm done by psychiatry and their whole Medical Model.

    Snead, just some thoughts provoked by your wonderful journey and story.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Susan

    You have not responded to my questions regarding the definition of class, and the importance of a deep going dialectical summation of the Russian and Chinese revolutions. How can humanity move forward to socialism without a thorough summation (POSITIVE and negative aspects) of previous attempts at revolution?

    And while these revolutions made errors (and, at times, serious errors) isn’t a key aspect of such an evaluation, the fact that both the Russian and Chinese revolutions were surrounded by a world of capitalist governments that worked tirelessly to defeat these revolutions. This fact combined with a certain amount of ignorance, and yes, mistakes, led to their defeats.

    Anyone who simply dismisses these revolutions as failures, or suggests they simply did not apply your undialectical theory of “bottom up” leadership, will not be able to propose a way forward for future socialist revolutions.

    Bob Avakian and the RCP, from my readings, have made a major contribution to socialist theory by summing up these previous revolutions (upholding ALL that was positive and critically analyzing the weaknesses) while ALSO, MOST IMPORTANTLY, trying to advance the science of revolution, with theoretical and practical leaps in theory with the “New Synthesis/New Communism.”

    Susan, while I like your analysis of the urgency for replacing capitalism, and your dissection of the oppressive role of psychiatry in the world today, your dismissal of the RCP and Bob Avakian is extremely troubling.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Susan

    Are you suggesting that was nothing positive in the Russian and Chinese revolutions?

    Of course there were shortcomings in both of these first time examples of socialist revolutions, but they were truly historic events of great importance, and the working and peasant classes had infinitely more say and involvement in running these societies than under capitalism.

    You say the masses in China were brutally exploited under Mao. How do you explain the fact that the average lifespan of Chines people doubled from 1950 to 1976 (from 35 yrs to 70 yrs) until when the revolution was defeated by a Right Wing coup in ’76?’ And the fact that massive famines and deaths due to hunger and massive amounts of opiate addiction (created by British Imperialism) were eliminated shortly after the revolution came to power.

    What is your definition of the “managerial class.” I understand class to be defined by both one’s relationship to the means of production AND by one’s ideology and practice towards eliminating all forms of human oppression.

    Pretty much all revolutionary uprisings in history were initiated by and led by individuals with access to education, and from a class of petty bourgeois intellectuals.

    Isn’t the key to determining the nature of their role as revolutionary leaders ultimately depend on whether or not their ideology AND practice (in developing various political formations) is actually moving towards a classless society AND educating and bringing forward more and more people from the proletariat to run the new society.

    And shouldn’t this same principle of bringing forward new leaders from the proletariat, also apply to the development of any truly revolutionary party attempting to lead a revolution. Your “bottom up” formation sounds like a type of “mechanical materialism” separate from the actual process by which revolutionary movements and leaders develop.

    Susan, are you not more educated (and had more access to education) than most people from the working class? Are you not hoping that working class people read your book and follow some of your ideas about bringing about socialism revolution in the world? Does that make you part of the “managerial class?”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Susan

    What evidence do you provide that the RCP “promotes a top down ‘socialism’ run on behalf of the workers rather than by the workers themselves.”

    Do you say this because they advocate for the role of a vanguard party to lead the revolution, or is there some other reason for your negative assessment?

    And while the RCP has been around for many years, Bob Avakian’s writing on the “New Communism” is relatively recent.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sarah

    This was one of the best blogs I have ever read at MIA. Once again, the capitalist drive for profit reveals its inseparable connection to psychiatry and the oppressive Medical Model.

    I have a very close friend who is now only a shell of her former self due to ECT and psychiatric drugging. I did my best trying to educate her and her husband away from these destructive “treatments,” but in the end I couldn’t compete with several hundred billion dollars of pseudo-scientific advertising for the Medical Model by psychiatry and Big Pharma. This may be the single largest PR (brainwashing) campaign in human history. I still beat myself up for thinking maybe I could have done more to prevent this tremendous harm perpetrated against my dear friends.

    Sarah, you are a “force of nature” not to be denied, and I salute your courage and determination to fight for true justice in this world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • In the authors concluding paragraph he makes the following statement:

    “…If the APA and the radicals are intending on paying more than lip service to the current crises, demonstrable action might take several forms. BESIDES FOCUSING ON INDIVIDUALIZED TREATMENTS AND PLACING TOO MUCH STOCK IN DRUG THERAPIES SUCH AS POSYCHEDELICS {my emphasis}, mental medicine should fully recognize racism’s impact on mental health as it did for the first time in 1969.

    This is such a WOEFULLY INADEQUATE summation of the problems with psychiatry over the past 5 decades! This is the equivalent of saying that THE problem with the fascist Trump regime is that they have put a little too much emphasis on the benefits of Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid 19.

    Where is the condemnation of the harm done by decades of DSM diagnoses, the hundreds of millions of prescriptions for toxic psychiatric drugs, the forced hospitalizations and drugging, the millions of shock treatments etc. ???

    It is hard to get into the question of racism in psychiatry when the author is so out of touch with the overall oppressive nature of psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • In today’s world “radical psychiatry” is a complete oxymoron.

    This author recounts some history of a more politically conscious caucus that formed in the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in the 1960’s. He seems to have a fantasy wish that something similar could happen in today’s world.

    This author TOTALLY FAILS to analyze what took place within psychiatry (and the broader society) over the past 5 decades. With the growing collusion between the leaders of psychiatry and Big Pharma, along with their several hundred BILLION dollar pseudo-scientific PR campaign (DSM. “chemical imbalance theory,” and dozens of new psych drugs), we ended up with the complete take over of all “mental health treatment” with the oppressive Medical Model.

    This takeover included all the schools training new psychiatrists, where psychopharmacology and brain “diseases” became the core curriculum, and therapy now became only an elective. Psychiatry has evolved into one of the most oppressive institutions in society. It has always had major examples of oppression with its snake pit hospitals, lobotomies, and shock therapy, but today it wields infinitely more power to dominate an oppress people.

    Psychiatry cannot be transformed or reformed into something that plays a positive role in helping people with extreme forms of psychological distress. Psychiatry’s fundamental theoretical and scientific basis is illegitimate, and it should be stripped of its ability to practice medicine in society.

    Radical and dissident psychiatrist do have a positive role to play in exposing the oppressive nature of their institution, disrupting their gatherings, and helping people harmed by psychiatric drugs with more research and development of safer withdrawal protocols.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Susan

    I strongly share your perspective on the urgent need to replace capitalism with socialism, and I strongly agree with your view on the decisive role of psychiatry in helping to maintain an oppressive status quo in the world.

    I am interested to know if you are part of a newer trend in socialist/communist theory and practice, and what is your view of the works of Bob Avakian, in particular, his writings on the “New Communism.” See the following link: https://revcom.us/avakian/index.html .

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Anomie

    Thanks for reaching out. You said:

    “We don’t need “mental health” alternatives. We need to end police brutality, end the war on drugs AND the wars overseas, end gentrification and provide affordable housing, provide anti-bias education in the classrooms and to adults, end capitalism and bring in Universal Basic Income, end the war on drugs, end food deserts, start worker-owned coops, break up the big banks, provide free holistic healthcare, etc.”

    Of course you have highlighted many particular forms of oppression that this system of capitalism engenders. And ending capitalism is the ultimate solution to these problems. NO AMOUNT of so-called reforms will bring about the changes we need.

    Under capitalism, when some reforms are actually put into place after some sort of social upheaval, the System inevitably eats away at these reforms, creates alternative forms of oppression, and co-opts most of the leaders into selling out the struggle.

    This does NOT mean we shouldn’t fight for radical reforms. We must do so without any illusions about what we are up against, and with a clear vision that full Revolution beyond capitalism is our goal.

    When we do fight for reforms, including ending psychiatry and all forms of psychiatric oppression, we must ALWAYS link that struggle to the need to end capitalism. Because any type of reform we accomplish will only eventually be eaten up and twisted upside down by the System.

    Fighting for radical reforms can become a process for educating new activists about how the System works and what it will take to actually bring about full Revolutionary change.

    You said: “…Mental Health professionals are the police.”

    Yes, many (not all) do, unfortunately function in this role in our society. There are a small percentage who do not function in this manner because they are in conflict with the Medical Model’s approach to providing support. People need to search for those who they can trust.

    But the Medical Model and its’ Disease/Drug Based approach is clearly dominant with billions of dollars and major institutions controlling the educational system and society’s narrative on the source (and solution) to major psychological distress.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Will

    Thank you for this great blog.

    “Defund” and “Dismantle” the police are definitely important demands that could lead to some positive changes in the U.S. that will ultimately save innocent lives.

    HOWEVER, we must clearly recognize that we live in a class based capitalist society, and even significant reforms made to policing in American will not end all forms of violence to working class and dispossessed people in this country and around the world.

    Capitalism (by its very nature) leads to the violence of poverty, climate destruction, sexism ,racism, and inter imperialist type wars. These facts of political life will also ultimately lead oppressed people to confront the ruling classes enforcement of such and oppressive “order” of life in our society. Some sort of police force or military force in society BY NECESSITY will inevitably be sent out to brutally suppress uprisings against this oppressive “order” of things.

    So to Will and others, when we raise demands such as “Defund” or Dismantle” the police, we must also link these struggles to the need for humanity to rid itself of a profit based capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • furies

    I think you are absolutely correct to bring up some of the dangers of *Identity Politics,* which is often used as a battering ram against a more revolutionary class based analysis of society. If you read this past blog authored by Sara (“A Racist Movement Cannot Move.”), and then carefully read all my comments (and those by “Oldhead” and “Humanbeing”) in the comment section, you will see a clear denunciation of the damage done by an “Identity Politics” political line.

    What you are be missing here, is that in these tumultuous times there is a much needed critique and condemnation of EVERYTHING in society (including all language and art forms) that are in some ways supporting and maintaining human oppression. AND it is inevitable in these kind of cultural upheavals that there will be EXCESSES. That is, certain situations where these criticisms an critiques go too far over the edge (often veering into the realm of “Identity Politics) and end up targeting and condemning good people and good ideas.

    We must nurture the desire AND the process for MORE revolutionary critiques of the current society, BUT carefully sort out each and everyone of these political debates to make sure that there are fewer “excesses” where good people and their good (actually politically CORRECT) ideas are falsely and mistakenly targeted.

    For example, I do like some things in general about Mike Taibbi’s writings, but I did not agree with the main arguments he made in the link you provided. However, I did like a lot of what I read in the link about The Vampire”s Castle” article.

    And I do respect the risks you have taken to bring up this difficult topic.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Perhaps you are correct to point out the “reformist line” within the MIA mission statement.

    It is fair to say that most people who post blogs and comments at MIA do ultimately slip into some sort of “reformism” most of the time.

    This occurs, both when they discuss what’s wrong with psychiatry and their Medical Model and then they propose *alternatives,* AND when they discuss making changes to the system of capitalism which both advances and sustains psychiatry and the Medical Model.

    I am extremely gratified that MIA leaves so much space for anti-psychiatry perspectives.

    All of this just makes it even clearer how much work we (those who are abolitionists and anti-capitalists) must do to move humanity closer to the point where both psychiatry and capitalism will only be featured in museums and history books.

    Historically, most people in any given societal upheaval will cling on to reformist tendencies right up to the last minute prior to when a revolutionary transformation occurs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I just posted a comment in the “Around the Web” section of MIA. Since we are in a heightened moment of societal (and self) examination and introspection about systemic forms of racism, should we not be just as vigilant about the harm done by the Medical Model. I put this message here because quite often people do not read or comment in that section of the MIA website.

    https://www.madinamerica.com/2020/06/207074/?unapproved=174144&moderation-hash=776a53dae606193f5ecf0b0d5d219b37#comment-174144

    Report comment

  • Since we are in a national moment in our history where both the most obvious and more subtle form of racism are being examined, SHOULD WE NOT BEING DOING THE SAME WHEN IT COMES TO THE TREMENDOUS HARM DONE BY THE MEDICAL MODEL’S LABELING AND CONCEPTS OF “MENTAL ILLNESS!!!”

    How is this posting any different than saying “all lives matter” or “buildings matter too.”

    This posting which belongs on NAMI’s website, should be removed from MIA’s website immediately. I don’t think the person who posted it should be fired, but instead, let’s use it as a very important teachable moment about everything that is wrong with the Medical Model and the related “liberal” perspective in society that perpetuates it.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sara, Oldhead, and ALL

    To break INTO the tension here, I just want to say that I LOVE both Sara Davidow and Oldhead!

    That form of LOVE is often referred to within political movements fighting oppression, with the affectionate name or greeting of “COMRADE.”

    Wikipedia says: ” ,,,Political use of the term was inspired by the French Revolution, after which it grew into a form of address between socialists and workers…
    When the socialist movement gained momentum in the mid-19th century, socialists elsewhere began to look for a similar egalitarian alternative to terms like “Mister”, “Miss”, or “Missus”. In German, the word Kamerad had long been used as an affectionate form of address among people linked by some strong common interest, such as a sport, a college, a profession (notably as a soldier), or simply friendship.[5] The term was often used with political overtones in the revolutions of 1848…’

    I have spent precious time wrangling (criticism/self-criticism) with both of these “comrades” because they are brilliant writers and such deeply passionate fighters against human oppression.

    I have learned from them both, AND ,at times, taken the risk (cause it sure ain’t easy) to struggled with them to help make them be BETTER at what they already do WELL.

    Damned it, don’t we ALL have to get better at fighting this incredibly powerful system of capitalism/imperialism that simply has such infinite ways to crush the human spirit.

    Oldhead, I would NEVER EVER want the past blog “A Racist Movement Cannot Move” to be removed from the archive. Everyone here should most definitely read and reflect on that blog and comment section, because it is so deeply rich with political lessons.

    To quote Oldhead from above:
    “It’s important for white people to understand racism, both what it is and what it isn’t.”
    Reading that particular blog and comment section (and this one) provides many deep lessons that can help us in future battles against systemic racism.

    Now back to the work at hand: trying to find ways to build off of the tremendous opportunities provided all radical activists by the powerful uprising in America and around the world over the brutal murder of George Floyd.

    Our ENEMY has been weakened and exposed in these tumultuous times. We must seek to advance AND link all these struggles against systemic racism, psychiatric oppression, climate destruction, sexism. classism etc.

    Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Sara

    You completely misinterpreted my meaning in the following quote:

    “While your intent here is to combat various forms of racism, and some of your particular examples you used (in the past blog) to highlight your intent were exactly that – crude forms of appropriation that do come off as racist, and just plain stupid.”

    Here I was actually AGREEING with you that some of the particular examples you had used in that past blog were CORRECTLY pointing out examples of racism and political stupidity.

    My essential point was (and still is) that in some of the OTHER situations, and examples I presented, there is a definite need to carefully examine the political context and political purpose of how white activists are using certain words and taking certain actions, before declaring them *out of bounds*, or possibly labeling them “racist.”

    While I did mention the struggle over the “psychiatric slavery” analogy, I deliberately chose NOT to use that issue in my main example of where you failed to take into consideration “context” and “political purpose” when examining how white activists can correctly use significant quotes from past Black activists.

    I don’t know if your misinterpretation of my above quote has now created a level of emotion, and a resulting atmosphere where dialogue can no longer continue.

    I do believe that my Frederich Douglas example (in the above comment) was both important, and helpful, feedback about when “absolutist” language and certain types of “dictates” to white activists (that ignores certain contextual information), will NOT help us in our fight against racist thinking and behavior.

    Sara, I am not sure WHAT you overall think my motivation is in raising some of these criticisms of a very FEW aspects of your many writings here at MIA.

    Even as an older and very seasoned revolutionary activist, it is not easy (and frankly,very uncomfortable at times) raising these issues with you. I take no pleasure in pursuing these types of discussions. I do it because I feel some sort of moral and historical responsibility to seek the truth and a path to human liberation from oppression.

    In past MIA dialogues over your blogs, other critics of your writing, either dismiss you outright, or just argue with you about how you are wrong. Very few people, if ever, actually try to offer you constructive feedback by carefully analyzing where you are right and suggesting where your logic and/or political pronouncements may have drifted off course.

    I make the effort (and tolerate the discomfort) with you, precisely because I see you as a gifted and very consequential writer on the internet, around the issue of psychiatric oppression and other important political struggles. I am not sorry I made these efforts to dialogue with you and attempt to give you constructive feedback, but I am saddened and disappointed that this discussion may end on such a negative vibe.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    When you said about RW:

    “His position is essentially that since “people” see the notion of anti-psychiatry as unscientific and conflate it with Scientology we should reject it.”

    By itself, this description of RW’s views does not exactly imply that he is against the concept and meaning of “anti-psychiatry.” It only means that he possibly believes that to be public about such a position at this time in history, especially for a journalist, would undercut his role (and that of MIA) in the struggle against psychiatric oppression and the entire Medical Model.

    I applaud the spectacular forum RW has created at MIA for us all to learn, debate, discuss, and organize against psychiatric oppression.

    Oldhead, it is up to US to do a better job in the coming years of exposing and attacking psychiatry for its oppressive and criminal role in the world today.

    We must create favorable conditions in our anti-psychiatry political work to make it possible for many people, including RW, to grasp the necessity and importance of taking a clear and public stand for the abolition of psychiatry.

    Of course, Oldhead you know that I believe the destiny of psychiatry is intimately connected and dependent upon the future of the entire capitalist system. So we need to do a better job in our anti-capitalist work, as well, in making these links to social control and all other forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    Whether or not the meme (REPEAT AFTER ME…) you posted in your current blog were your specific words, is not the essential point I am making here. They were used in same manner, and used partially for the same purpose as some of your “dictates” and “admonishments” in prior blogs.

    I’ll mention two prior such dictates:
    “Stop Comparing Psychiatry to Slavery (or similar) and

    “Stop Appropriating the words of Black People to Support System (or anti-system) Messages

    While your intent here is to combat various forms of racism, and some of your particular examples you used (in the past blog) to highlight your intent were exactly that – crude forms of appropriation that do come off as racist, and just plain stupid.

    However, your use of “absolutist” language in your “dictates” often totally lack CONTEXT AND POLITICAL PURPOSE by some of the radical activists using the language and analogies you decry and condemn.

    For example, I applaud radical activists of ALL colors and nationalities who correctly use a famous quote by Frederich Douglas to expose the hypocrisy of U.S. patriotism and flag waving on July 4th in a country built on the backs of slavery, and the vicious exploitation of working class people (of all colors) here, and in many Third World countries. Once again, it’s all about “context” and “political purpose.” when evaluating someone’s particular use of a famous Black person’s words.

    And some white political activists (anti-psychiatry and anti-capitalist) here in the MIA comment section, have correctly used the words of the Black revolutionary, Mumia Abu-Jamal (and other Black revolutionary leaders) to make important political points on numerous topics, including fighting psychiatric oppression.

    And Sera, I have seen the video (and read the accounts) of a Black city official in Ferguson (in the rebellion related to Michael brown’s killing) tackle and assault a white revolutionary giving a revolutionary speech in the streets supporting the uprising. This same Black official (“fire extinguisher”) attempted to incite the police and other Black people against the “white outside agitators destroying our community.”

    Bear in mind that this same white revolutionary is part of a larger group that also has Black members in the organization fighting for a socialist future in this country and around the world. That particular Black official needed to be condemned and called out for his attempts to suppress (and limit) multi-racial and multi-national unity fighting a common enemy. And yes, I am aware that there are some right wing elements acting as provocateurs in these situations. But this was definitely not the case, and this official knew that.

    Sara YES, some more backward and ignorant white people need to be justly put on the defensive, and yes, they need to listen to, and follow the lead of Black people in some of these struggles.

    However, there is far more nuance to be considered here when you print and repeat various absolutist “dictates” and “admonishments” to white radical political activists. It all boils down to CONTEXT AND POLITICAL PURPOSE when evaluating the role of white people in multi-racial political struggles.

    Sera, I would never expect you or anyone else to defer to someone merely because of their age or political experience in political movements. But there are some people writing in this comment section with literally decades of radical activism, and some have been in the forefront with other Black radicals in some of the most significant struggles in this country’s history against systemic racial oppression. I’m in my fifth decade, and I know of others who equal that experience ,or come close.

    So once again, Sera I ask you to reconsider the “absolutist” type language in some of your “dictates” and “admonishments” that have, at times, lacked NUANCE and CONTEXT, and result in potentially tarnishing very good radical activists with a tag of “racism.” And it can also have the effect of shutting down much needed debate and discussion.

    Don’t get me wrong here, I am ALL FOR provocative political commentary and slogans, IF,they appropriately leave room for both political nuance and political context.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sara

    I believe I “get” what you are talking about when it comes to finding ways of creating a better environment for “inclusion” and greater participation of marginalized people etc. Some of your suggestions about “listening” and at times “stepping back” so others can come forward and speak etc, are especially important when you have new people, and others who might feel “out of place.”

    But I am wondering if you are open to some criticism/feedback about some of your choices of language (at times) when you post “dictates” or “admonishments” to white people about what they can or cannot say, and/or do, in certain situations. And if someone were to disagree with some aspect of the “warning,” then the implication is that they must therefore most certainly be a “racist.”

    For example, in this blog you posted a big black box warning with the following admonishment:

    “REPEAT AFTER ME: I WILL NOT TELL BLACK FOLKS HOW TO FEEL, PROTEST, OR MOURN.”

    First off, I would not tell anyone how they should “feel” or “mourn.” Personal feelings are unique to the individual and generally flow from someone’s belief system and cultural influences. Mourning behavior and thoughts are also very much related to the the nature of a person’s “feelings.”

    However, to say that people who are not minorities do not have the “right,” or even an “obligation,” to enter into a discussion and/or debate about the best ways to struggle (protest) against systemic racism, is just plain wrong.

    As I mentioned in my above comment, there are many minority spokespeople (in this current uprising) from all sectors of society, representing many different class and racial viewpoints. Some of these people are acting (as I pointed out above) like “firemen” and “fire extinguishers” trying to stifle and limit the scope of the struggle within acceptable parameters for the “powers that be.” They must be challenged and struggled against.

    We must ALL find ways to join with more radical elements within these minority movements and uprisings to oppose reformism and other dead end strategies. The fact that this is not easy to do correctly, and is filled with all kinds of potential minefields, should never preclude us from trying. History demands this of us.

    And if the struggle against systemic racism does not ultimately link up with other struggles, such as ending climate destruction, women, psychiatric oppression, classism etc., we will never defeat the “powers that be” and their class based system of exploitation and oppression.

    I believe you have made a few other bad choices of language (with several dictates and admonishments) in the past blog “A Racist Movement Cannot Move.” I do take issue with how you characterized that particular comment section as “too ugly and out of control.” Within that very long comment section there was some very respectable and legitimate feedback/criticism of some of your choices of language and particular admonishments to MIA readers and commenters.

    Now that some time has past since that past struggle, do you see that there may be a similar problem connected to your black box warning (REPEAT AFTER ME…) in this current blog.

    Again, you know I am a big supporter of your prolific writing here at MIA, and anyone writing several dozen blogs on any website is definitely increasing the odds that they might make a few mistakes here and there.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Sara Thanks for your response. I may have more to say in the very near future. But I thought I would post a link to a very powerful post that is circulating on the internet.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLDmB0ve62s

    Here is a black women (Kimberly Rice Jones) “speaking truth to power” where she actually DOES use the words “rioters” and “looters,” but she provides a powerful historical and political context. She also references the the Tulsa and Rosewood massacres of several hundred Black people that has largely been hidden in the history books. I believe that Robert Whitaker has written in the past about this topic.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thank you Sara for being the first at MIA to write about the historic rebellion and uprisings (worldwide) against the death of George Floyd and its’ direct connection to systemic racism.

    Sara you have always led the way at MIA in writing on the difficult and necessary topics that often make people uncomfortable while living with much greater privilege in a wealthy class based capitalist society. Especially, since there would be no U.S. imperialist empire, and such enormous wealth, without the oppressive legacy of slavery, and the on-going exploitation of those sectors of society on the bottom rungs of the ladder (especially people of color) both here in the U.S. and in the Third World countries dominated by the U.S.

    And I am so glad you did NOT mention the words “riot” or “looting” since they only serve to demean, denigrate, and distract from the truly historic nature of these uprisings. The police were “rioting,” and “looting” takes place on a daily basis in this country by the one percent who have a foot on all our necks in one form or another, including with their Disease/Drug Based Medical Model that is at the route of all psychiatric oppression.

    And yes, just as with Covid 19, people of color are disproportionately harmed by today’s so-called “mental health” paradigm of “treatment.”

    Systemic racism is intimately connected to the entire history of the U. S. capitalist/imperialist system,and we ALL must find ways in a post Covid 19 world to politically target a profit based capitalist system in ALL our struggles against all forms of oppression. In fact, this has now become a “moral imperative” for those who “know better,’ or should I say, “know more.” I will soon write a blog titled “Psychiatry and Capitalism in a Post Covid 19 World” where i delve deeply into this profoundly important “moral imperative.”

    Sara, I was so glad to see you mention the word “revolution” in your blog as a direction we need to seek in our political struggles in the future. But once again, the enormous ELEPHANT (not mentioned) in the room, the fact that ALL of this oppression we are talking about, not only takes place in a CAPITALIST system, but is both given sustenance and powerfully generated by capitalism. And systemic racism, and all other forms of human oppression, cannot end unless humanity ultimately moves beyond a capitalist system.

    Now back to the issue of ALL people engaging with Black people, and other people of color, about the way forward out of this systemic insanity. We could plainly see in these recent uprisings MANY different political viewpoints coming from ALL sectors of society and ALL sectors within the Black community. This includes Black politicians, mayors, police chiefs, spiritual leaders, political commentators, and others with various credentials who were sometimes seeking ways to limit the scope, intensity. and political targets for this historic uprising.

    In the 60’s, we use to call these type of political interventionists (of all colors and political persuasions) as “firemen” or “fire extinguishers.” They are genuinely afraid of these rebellions going “too far” with too much revolutionary content. These are the same people who choose to focus on “looting,” “property destruction,” and “law breaking” to denigrate the political significance of the righteous rebellion taking place against systemic oppression. These are some of the same people afraid of the terms “dismantling” and “defunding” who now just want to see a few so-called cosmetic reforms to policing and other institutions within our society. All of which will do nothing of consequence to end racist oppression.

    Of course, I (and others) should always listen extremely carefully to the political perspectives of all minority people’s, including those who are representing the current power structure and/or status quo. We must always engage in respectful struggle (being very mindful of the long legacy of historical racism in this society) when we have different ideas or views regarding making radical change in society.

    But white privilege, and any other class or sexual identity privileges we were born into, should never lead us to hold back from any, and all, opportunities to make radical change in the coming period – the world demands it!

    Nor should we engage in any kind of patronizing behavior towards minority people’s (which, in itself, is a form of racism), where we hold back our political perspectives for fear of challenging or “offending.” someone of a different race or ethnic background.

    All of these struggles involving systemic racism, climate destruction, women’s liberation, sexual identity, psychiatric oppression, classism etc. must increasing find ways to increasingly come together with a singularity of purpose, with clear targets, and common strategic and tactical goals. This WILL NOT happen without very deep and intense struggle WITHIN, and AMONG, ALL the people fighting those at the top rungs of society. Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Catalyzt

    Could you provide more details about the “one particular powerful group session.” What was the group topic, and were you discussing the issue of sex drive and sexual dysfunction within this group?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sam

    Thank you for validating my art work. It means so much to me when psychiatric survivors, and others harmed by psychiatry, find some type of connection to my song.

    Sam, I have been reading your comments at MIA for some time now and always find them to be very educational and emotionally moving.

    We all have much work to do in order to sweep psychiatry and their oppressive Medical Model into the “Dust Bin of History.”

    Carry on! Richard

    Report comment

  • Malcolm

    Sorry for your loss, and I, too, share your very powerful critique of the oppressive forces in society that were directly involved in leading your beautiful son to his untimely demise. Thanks for sharing such a well written and emotional tribute to his life.

    I wrote this song ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmpfq0b7tLA ) after working 22 years in community health in the U.S., and I witnessed all the damaged done by psychiatry and their Medical Model. I hope my song provides some level of beauty and emotional catharsis to your loss.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Thanks for the response.

    You just said:
    “… it is certainly obvious that our populace is so far away from even asking that question that, in order to meet people where they are at, we have to answer less overarching questions…”

    I believe this type of approach (of lowering political expectations and dumbing down our analysis) is EXACTLY what leads people into all kinds of reformism and failed “piece meal” approaches to political change.

    If ANYTHING (over the last several decades) has opened up people’s minds to ask very fundamental questions about the viability of a profit based capitalist system, it is the Covid 19 pandemic.

    OMG. Steve, even the current ruling has been forced to discuss (and in some cases implement) some policies that would have been clearly labeled as “communist inspired” prior to this pandemic crisis.

    Every (and all) the weaknesses, inequalities, vulnerabilities, and overall immorality of the capitalist system has been laid bare for all to see.

    There is no better time than right NOW to raise all the BIG questions about the need for major systemic change in the world. Seize the time! Humanity can’t wait much longer for these type of revolutionary changes to occur.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said:
    “At first glance my impression is that Lieberman may be on the right {sic} side here”

    I think you might want to consider taking back the above comment for it it totally contradicts the very consistent and correct logic you have applied in all your above comments.

    Lieberman is only taking his position against Lee and others because he believes it might potentially threaten the political and “scientific” credibility of psychiatry as a professional enterprise.

    Oldhead, I would stick with your later comment which says:

    “Simply put, we should not be getting involved in psychiatry’s internal disputes. A pox on all their houses!”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    I strongly agree with Oldhead here.

    Steve you said above:
    “I think rather than “diagnosing” Trump, what is needed is a coordinated effort to honestly evaluate his behavior in terms of whether he’s doing his job and adhering to his oath of office.”

    Trump IS doing his “job” quite well representing one particular (more openly fascistic) faction in the U.S. capitalist ruling class.

    And as far as “adhering to his oath of office,” this particular faction Trump represents believes their current agenda is absolutely necessary to protect and extend the economic and political interests of the U.S. Imperialist empire at this time. And why should WE ever want to quibble with their Imperialist based strategic perspectives???

    And Steve, why would you want to give ANY credibility to a Presidential “oath of office,’ when the very nature of that office is to oversee and continue the oppression of millions of people around the world? The Covid 19 pandemic has exposed (for those who could not already see) the incredible levels of inequality and oppression in a class based capitalist system, and also why this system must be removed for humanity to have any chance of future survival.

    Steve then you said above:
    “We have a means for removing incompetent or corrupt presidents from office. If Congress doesn’t act to remove him, the voters have a responsibility to do so. If they do not, well, as they say, people get the government they deserve.”

    Who is the “we” in this paradigm? Here you are completely confining the chances for future political change totally in the realm of “voting” in an organized capitalist class based electoral process. This has proven historically to be an utter failure in bringing about necessary systemic change in the world. And the same will be so in the future.

    And finally Steve, when you say “…people get the government they deserve” (in the above context)

    This is the essence of a “blame the victim” type statement. This completely ignores ALL the brutally oppressive instruments of power and control (including psychiatry and all forms of social media) used by the “powers that be” to maintain their class based rule.

    Steve, I appreciate many of your above comments, but these particular comments must be critically analyzed for remaining totally within ruling class type logic and overall framework of thinking.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • You completely lost me with the title to this blog.

    Who the the hell is the “WE” in the title.

    The curriculum in ALL the schools training psychiatrist today is 100% controlled by a colluding alliance between the leaders of Big Pharma and the American Psychiatric Association – end of story.

    What should WE expect to be the result of such oppressive power and control?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Phil

    A simply simply brilliant deconstruction (complete annihilation!!!) of the so-called scientific underpinnings of modern psychiatry.

    You have taken the preeminent, and very top scientific thinker (and spokesperson – Dr Kendler) for psychiatry, and revealed their profession”s extremely unprincipled and desperate search for a “science” to justify their existence.

    This quote from your article captures the essence of psychiatry’s motivations for a way to justify their existence:

    ” Didn’t most of the great errors of science stem from efforts to justify the status quo often for the benefit of various powerful conflicting interests?”

    Phil, please carry on your totally revolutionary intellectual pursuits! They are SO very valuable to the human pursuit of truth and justice in a very oppressive world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thank you Don for such a fitting tribute to the life and activism of an amazing warrior for the oppressed.

    Bonnie Burstow represents the very best of humanity. She never settled for just enjoying the privileges available to those of us living in a first world country. She was a tireless fighter for ALL the oppressed who gave of herself to her last breath. We should all be inspired by her example to do even more to make this world a better place.

    In addition (and very much connected to) her advanced anti-psychiatry activism and radical feminism, she was a major critic and fighter against the capitalist system. She was very aware of the deep connections between all psychiatric abuse and a profit based/capitalist system.

    While I have corresponded with Bonnie in the past, I only wish I could have engaged with her in person to strategize and plan more activism to end ALL psychiatric abuse and help move the planet beyond the crippling effects of a profit based/capitalist system.

    LONG LIVE THE SPIRIT OF BONNIE BURSTOW!!!

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob and All

    Thanks for sharing such a deeply personal story (from both Zel Dolinsky and you, Bob), and I want to express my condolences to all who knew this very courageous man.

    This story, in so many ways, concentrates EVERYTHING that MIA and “Anatomy of an Epidemic” has been about for the past 8 years.

    We (those who live in the U.S.) must constantly remind ourselves that we live in a trauma based society, and the Medical Model does everything to steer us away from understanding the connection between psychological pain and the surrounding environment.

    We have a long road ahead; psychiatry and the entire Medical Model are so deeply embedded in every pore of this very sick society. Truly Revolutionary type change is necessary to move the world in an entirely different direction.

    Thanks to the Zel Zelinsky’s and Bob Whitaker’s of the world who dare to speak the truth.

    We love you Bob – Carry on!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rachel

    Thanks for the response.

    I would say that the concept of “original sin” imposed on society by various religions. has actually done FAR MORE harm to people in the world (up to this point in history) than the harm done by psychiatry and their genetic theories. Although psychiatry is doing its best to catch up.

    When you look at how children, in particular, respond to trauma experiences by deeply internalizing toxic guilt and shame, you can see the tragic results of this religious doctrine. People (especially children) feel completely abandoned by the adults they are taught to respect and obey, and who are suppose to protect them in the world.

    They also end up not feeling worthy enough to be protected by their “God” and negatively judged, as a “sinner,” by their “God,” and ultimately “punished” by this same god. These kind of very harmful beliefs are often repeated by many trauma victims in multiple ways, and carried into adulthood.

    Rachel, you said:
    “the doctrine of “original sin” goes along with the doctrine that all human beings are special beings who bear the divine breath within. And have basic rights to life and liberty by nature of our common humanity. Regardless of intelligence, strength or beauty.”

    This comment ignores the fact that the Bible is filled with quotes that promote harmful patriarchy against both women and children, including stoning and death as a punishment for various types of so-called disobedience and disrespect. And one of the 10 Commandments actually upholds slavery. Overall, there is very little “rights to life and liberty” depicted in the morale standards of the Bible.

    I believe there is no such thing as “sin,” which implies some type of eternal “good AND “Evil” in ALL human beings and in the world.

    There is, however, “right and wrong” in the world as determined by an evolving code of human morality that has fortunately evolved far beyond (in some places on the planet) than the more primitive standards laid out in the Bible.

    I have to say that the uncritical and blind interpretations of biblical scripture and religious doctrine that some engage in reminds me very much of the uncritical and blind interpretations of the DSM Bible and the entire Medical Model.

    Rachel, I love almost all your comments and your overall presence at MIA, but I just can’t let these contradictions in thinking slide by without responding in a direct and honest way.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • There is one very BIG difference in this discussion about “Left” and “Right,” and why it is NOT a good idea to equate problems with “authoritarianism” within both political persuasions.

    Those people on the “Right” who defend capitalism and class based societies as a necessary form of political and economic formation, believe that human beings can NEVER rise above the need for some form of “authoritarianism.”

    They base this belief on the theory that this conforms to a forever (selfish) flaw in human nature. They also worship at the throne of some sort of “Libertarian” right of individual freedom, that somehow supersedes the rights of the collective whole.

    Both of these outlooks by those who adhere to a “Rightist” political persuasion, guarantees the continuation of the status quo of a capitalist/class based society, where the bottom line of “profit first” will always guide us into competitive Imperialist wars and the further destruction of the environment, along with all the other problems of a commodity based culture.

    ON THE OTHER SIDE, a genuine “Left” perspective advocates for, AND believes, that a cooperative classLESS society is both necessary AND possible. Thus their goals and intention is to eliminate ALL form of “authoritarianism.”

    Genuine “Leftists” do NOT believe that human nature has any permanent fixed flaws, but it is quite malleable and capable of the creative conscious transformation of the world into a place with ever increasing amounts of freedom, where exploitation, trauma, war, and violence can gradually be eliminated (over hundreds of years) from social society.

    Of course declaring one’s beliefs about human nature and about what kind of societies are both necessary and possible in the world. is very different than actually living up to those ideals AND making it happen in the real world.

    BUT these distinctions between “Left” and “Right” are very important to be understood, AND they have deeply important moral and political implications about where we choose to stand in the world, and how we go about making the world a better place, including eliminating ALL forms of psychiatric abuse.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Given ALL the difficulties you describe about moving away from abusive forms of authoritarianism in building a new society, we must seriously address the question of RISK/REWARD.

    Yes, the path moving toward a more egalitarian society free of all forms of oppression. war, trauma etc., including ending psychiatric abuse, will be long and extremely difficult.

    But doing nothing (for fear of failure), OR falling for all the many traps of trying to reform a capitalist system that is functioning in a way that it is intrinsically designed to function. are both recipes for disaster.

    Either Imperialist war and/or climate change will certainly destroy this plant if we unable to move beyond the capitalist system and actually achieve (through revolutionary change) a non-authoritarian socialist system as a step toward a truly classless society.

    For these kind of changes to have a CHANCE of happening, we (those who believe this is necessary) need to change our attitudes AND LANGUAGE.

    We need to articulate just how dangerous it is to accept the status quo, AND/OR, how dangerous it is to advocate for SLOW change.

    We need to be willing to take some RISKS in making systemic change, with no absolute guarantees of success. If we don’t. this world is in danger of being destroyed.

    Our LANGUAGE (including how we talk about authoritarianism) needs to reflect some of our willingness to take risks (I’m not talking about impulsive or foolish risks), but carefully summing up the past attempts at socialism (the good and bad), and then boldly move forward.

    This conversation is NOT off topic. It is my view that we cannot end psychiatric abuse without ALSO ending a class based capitalist system.

    Psychiatry and Big Pharma are TOO BIG AND IMPORTANT to “The Powers That Be” to be allowed to fail. The program and laws promoted by K.Harris actually targets the more rebellious sections of society. It leads to more drugging and social control of those sections in society who are most likely to be a part of the Revolution we need.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. I addressed this issue in a challenging way because I have read very similar comments by you on other occasions, and never got around to responding to you (my bad).

    We need to be very clear when we use the “Left” or “Right” labels (as Oldhead has pointed out many times) because its definition is now so confusing to people , when for example, Hilliary Clinton or some other Liberal can be called a “Leftist.”

    I define “Leftist” as someone who believes that humanity needs to move BEYOND a capitalist system towards socialism, as an historical transition to a truly communistic classless society.

    People who have made genuine attempts to fight for, and build, socialism and move towards a classless society SHOULD NOT be equated (even when they make authoritarian type mistakes) with those on the “Right” who either operate an exploitative capitalist society, and/or advocate for one.

    Yes, it is true that some formerly genuine socialists (Leftists) can transform themselves into becoming oppressive authoritarians. In these cases they end up actually wanting to “go back” and/or preserve some sort of class structures that will benefit them and their family at the cost of the majority of people (they then become counter-revolutionaries). Thus, we ultimately have a RETURN to some form of capitalism (or as we call it, “state capitalism” as formerly existed in the Soviet Union, and now exists in China) – Russia is now openly capitalist in both name and deed.

    Other genuine Leftists, did NOT want to return to capitalism, but instead, made authoritarian (and other related) type mistakes that set back the course of revolutionary change. These mistakes (even serious mistakes), in the course of valiant attempts at Revolutionary change are a complicated combination of ignorance, trial and error, and very much related to the horrendous pressure applied to defeat these revolutions by the old defeated capitalist class, and other countries fearing the growth of Revolutions around the world.

    Steve, you said: ” Revolutions have historically not always led to real change, because the internalized authoritarian underpinnings of the social system were not addressed, and the new rulers step into the authoritarian roles that they and the society they are part of feel comfortable with.”

    Here, if you are talking about “the birthmarks” of the old system reasserting themselves in the new society, then I can agree with you.

    But, we must remember that historical attempts at transitioning BEYOND capitalism to socialism/communism, are ONLY a hundred and fifty years YOUNG. This is a relatively short period of time on a human historical scale. Most new experiments in both science and in the social world will NEVER succeed on just the first few attempts.

    Why did the prior historical attempts at socialist/communist revolutions fail? Is this somehow because there is an “authoritarian” flaw in human nature, or are there other more scientific and ultimately knowable explanations for these unrealized (and defeated) attempts at Revolutionary change.

    To simply repeat phrase about “authoritarianism” being endemic to “all” political persuasions on both the “Left” and the “Right” contributes to a commonly accepted narrative pushed by the defenders of capitalism and the status quo. This is a narrative that lacks any attempt to do justice to an accurate historical summation of revolutionary attempts over the past 150 years.

    Steve, I am NOT saying this was your intention, but we all must be careful with the phrases we choose to repeat, and how that particular vernacular is interpreted by most people in today’s society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Your comment is confusing at best, and tends to reinforce the “authoritarian” view that human beings will ALWAYS be authoritarian.

    This is, in the final analysis, a justification for people to ultimately accept the status quo, and stop dreaming of, and working towards, a world FREE of authoritarianism.

    Your comment reinforces the view that we all need to accept the fact that human beings will ALWAYS need to live in some sort of class based (authority) type capitalist society, because somehow this corresponds to some sort of “forever” human characteristic that can never change.

    There ARE, and CAN BE, “political persuasions” that advocate for, and work towards, a world free of “authoritarianism.”

    Steve, are you denying this possibility?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Syd

    Thank you for those meaningful words and details filling us in about her life.

    I remember her as valiant warrior against psychiatry and the Medical Model who never let her wounds keep her from helping others or speaking her mind against all forms of oppressive authority. May her spirit live on and inspire others to step forward in the struggle.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Stephen Gilbert was a true warrior for all those oppressed by psychiatry and the entire Medical Model. He walked that oh so delicate line of working inside the System, but never allowing himself to be engulfed or compromised by it. His anti-psychiatry critique was filled with both passion and scientific substance.

    And when Stephen felt himself somehow (by association) participating in harm to people by being a part of the System, he was the first to be self-critical and seek ways of finding restitution. He has always been one of my favorite people writing in the comment section, and I learned so much from his personal experience, his overall political critique, and his forthright honesty. He will be sorely missed, and there are big very shoes to be filled by those following in his footsteps.

    Long Live the Spirit of Stephen Gilbert!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • While this blog raises some important points about the psychological effects (self image) of young women taking antidepressant drugs, it leaves out the ESSENTIAL QUESTION of the actual physical and psychological effects of these drugs.

    There is a great deal of evidence (both scientific and anecdotal) of the sexual side effects (loss of desire and ability to experience pleasure), and also, evidence that these drugs interfere with the desire to “bond” with other human beings. These two related phenomena could have enormous negative effects on the overall development of a young girl’s life.

    And what happens when these young women cycle through the often reported “rabbit hole” of on going relapses with drug changes and the addition of more powerful psych drug cocktails?

    I don’t think we can adequately discuss this important topic WITHOUT discussing these crucially related topics of overall psychiatric drug harm.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To RW and All the MIA Staff

    There is much to celebrate in what MIA has accomplished over the past 8 years. MIA has become a powerful force on the internet and within our society exposing the overall oppressive Medical Model, and the particular role that psychiatry and Big Pharma play in promulgating that model. It also offers many empathetic alternatives for those needing emotional and psychological help.

    I am heartened by RW’s and MIA’s willingness to continuously re-evaluate its mission and role in the struggle to end psychiatric oppression, and to establish a new narrative about the emotional and psychological difficulties of human existence.

    And I do very much appreciate that RW, both solicits and responds to, the sometimes contentious and controversial views of the MIA readers and followers. In particular, the fact that the term “mental illness” was placed in quotes by RW represents part of this important evolution and growth of thinking that has taken place at MIA.

    In conclusion, I want to say I support the changes and evolution in the MIA mission statement. I will add the following comments about the nature of our current society and the struggle to overturn the oppressive Medical Model:

    While there has been progress in changing minds and gathering forces to oppose all forms of psychiatric oppression, we must be brutally realistic about what it will actually take to end the enormous harm done by the Medical Model.

    Psychiatry, Big Pharma, and its related “genetic theories of original sin,” and its increasing role in society as a form of social control, has become TOO BIG AND IMPORTANT to the POWERS THAT BE, to be allowed to fail.

    So what is likely to develop in the coming years is A VERY POLARIZED DIVIDE on the narrative questions that MIA has definitively staked out territory clearly on one pole. That is, a humanistic and empathetic understanding of human psychological distress as intimately connected to the daily stress related to social inequality, injustice, and trauma emerging out of a class based, profit driven economic and political system.

    On the other side of this very polarized divide, stands deeply entrenched psychiatry, Big Pharma, the capitalist ruling class, and all those people in society who have consumed (often out of fear) the Medical Model narrative of chemical imbalances, genetic defects, and human psychological flaws as the explanation for why there is social inequality and enormous human angst in the world.

    This type of divide I am describing is very similar (and in many ways connected) to the current divide in the U.S. over summing up the role of Donald Trump as a so called “fascist threat,” or as a “savior and protector of the glorious U.S. Empire.”

    This system we live under, with its vast “market place of ideas,” can tolerate sharp political divides (like those over the Medical Model and Trump) for certain periods of time. But these types of political divides WILL NOT ultimately be resolved through a mere EVOLUTION, or just gathering more forces who accept the “new” narrative.

    These sharp political divides I am describing must ultimately be resolved through major systemic change in society. Here I would argue that this will require replacing our current profit based/capitalist system with a new type of socialist model.

    Whether or not people believe this is possible (or have other ideas for big solutions), please DO NOT be lulled into thinking that these major type changes related to the oppression of the Medical Model, will GRADUALLY CHANGE through slow evolutionary growth. This type of thinking is not only very unrealistic, but also extremely dangerous.

    Any serious look at what is going on in the world tells us that “power concedes nothing without a struggle.” And psychiatry, Big Pharma, and other ruling class forces in society who DIRECTLY BENEFIT from what the Medical Model provides to HELP maintain the status quo, WILL NOT simply rollover and give up because we have the “facts” and significant forces gathered on our side.

    We have a long and tortuous struggle ahead, and I am convinced that MIA can play a significant role in this struggle.

    I salute MIA and its staff – keep up the great work. Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win! I already give a donation every year to MIA, but I will now add an additional one hundred dollars to the cause. Carry on!

    Richard D. Lewis

    Report comment

  • Modern psychiatry was created by capitalism and its profit based system. Given its current role in society labeling and drugging some of the most potentially rebellious sections of society, psychiatry CANNOT be abolished until we abolish the capitalist system.

    How would the capitalist class ever allow psychiatry to be dismantled, when it has become so valuable to their current existence and their ability to maintain control of certain sections of society?

    The struggle against psychiatric oppression in all its forms, however, is potentially a vital conduit for the growth of overall resistance to capitalism. Exposing psychiatric oppression to its core, gets right to the heart of what causes human alienation and psychological trauma, and what changes are necessary (socialism) to finally eradicate it, once and for all.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Noel

    Great blog.

    I would only quibble with your use of the word “scientism.” Unfortunately, this word is used in multiple ways by people on both sides of the political spectrum. More often than not, it is used as a way to attack legitimate science from Right Wing perspectives.

    The examples you have used in this blog are ALL examples of BAD science that cannot be substantiated by the legitimate use of the scientific method. So why not just call it “bad” or “illegitimate” science instead of the very confusing term “scientism,” which implies that it is somehow bad to be “too scientific.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Andrew

    Great blog and exposure of the enormous harm caused by the Medical Model of so-called “treatment” for human psychological distress.

    This system cannot be reformed, and must be eliminated along with the profit based system of capitalism that created this oppressive model and continues to benefit in many ways from its existence.

    Question: is there any scientific evidence that DBS provides any help to people with Parkinson’s disease?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Just one more example why we need to move beyond a profit based capitalist system. Even when these profit hungry murders are caught red handed, their system is rigged so they can recover their ability to remain in positions of power, and then continue exploiting people.

    All reforms and appearances of so-called justice under the capitalist system are merely an illusion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    You said: “…but it still leaves you potentially vulnerable to someone changing the topic to how bad Scientologists are or how “most” opponents “are Scientologists” even if you are not.”

    No, just the opposite. People can keep the discussion (or argument) focused on Scientology as long as we refuse to answer the question.

    So again, the best way to handle this is SIMPLE. We simply tell the truth by saying:
    ” I already told you, we are not Scientologists. We think they are a dangerous cult, so why do you keep bringing this up to avoid dealing with……”

    Steve, you said: ” do you really think that most of the psychiatric profession is asking protesters about Scientology because they are concerned it is a “dangerous cult” and don’t want to interact with it?”

    Again, it doesn’t matter why they are asking the question. It could be a legitimate question by honest people or an illegitimate question by psychiatry lovers trying to deflect the discussion. To eliminate this issue from the discussion or debate, just tell the truth (“No, we are not Scientologists.”) and move on.

    In fact, in some discussions by honest people making the inquiry about Scientology, we could provide some of the history of our movement. We could let people know that some past activists made the MISTAKE of working with Scientology, and then show how that gave psychiatry and the Medical Model an opening to attack those people critical of psychiatry. And also, how this has now become a strategy by lovers of the Medical Model to discredit its critics.

    Scientology is a powerful and well organized cult with deep pockets. It does great harm to those people (especially vulnerable people going through psychological distress) ensnared by its sophisticated anti-psychiatry cover and purported solutions to people’s problems in a difficult world.

    Just like any organization that preys upon and recruits disaffected youth, we should be prepared to both understand Scientology’s reactionary role in society and speak out against them when the opportunity presents itself.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This is NOT the best way to handle the Scientology issue.

    For many people (including myself) they want to know if Scientology is involved in an organization because they know it is a DANGEROUS CULT and NOT A RELIGION, and they do not want to have ANY connection to it at all.

    Because Scientology is a dangerous cult, it has a specific agenda that is in major competition with psychiatry to recruit very vulnerable people in psychological distress. Based on this reactionary agenda, Scientology will ultimately destroy any anti-psychiatry organizing from within, in addition to discrediting our movement to the general pubic.

    Yes, some people (including psychiatry) use this as a foil to discredit anti-psychiatry and the struggle against the Medical Model. And this has been historically very successful, because past anti-psychiatry type activists have made the MISTAKE of working WITH Scientology.

    So the answer to all this is SIMPLE.

    1) Do not ever knowingly work with Scientology

    2) When asked or accused of being a Scientologist simply say the following:

    “No, Scientology is a dangerous cult, so why are you accusing me of this instead of dealing with …………………..”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Unfortunately, psychiatry is NOT “on shaky ground” at this time. It is more powerful than ever and deeply (and forever) connected to the future of the entire capitalist system.

    Those who are NOW overly optimistic about ending psychiatry and their Medical Model, FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE INTERTWINED CONNECTIONS OF PSYCHIATRY AND MODERN CAPITALISM.

    Read Bruce Levine’s blog (currently posted next to RW’s blog) which provides an important response to the provocative question Robert Whitaker raises with his title.

    To be optimistic about the fall of psychiatry at this time would have to mean that you are also optimistic that we are now on the verge of a revolution to end the profit based capitalist system.

    While a political crisis could develop rapidly and these conditions could change to be more favorable, there is no evidence of this happening at this time.

    This is why we must always connect our critique AND organizing efforts against the oppressive Medical Model to also ending the profit based capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • One can respect the activism and science promoted by those people who are all the way ANTI-PSYCHIATRY, but not YET be ready to advocate for the complete abolition of psychiatry in society.

    I would say that this is most likely where RW is coming from. So it is OBVIOUS why he would put some distance between his own views and *anti-psychiatry.*

    This is not rocket science!

    Report comment

  • Oldhead says: “Stephen, Steve, KS and Rosalee, please pay attention to my main point …”

    No one is going to pay attention, or give much credence to to your “main point,” after you totally mischaracterize some one else’s words and their essential arguments.

    And then when you’re called out on this, and rightly criticized for this behavior, you refuse to acknowledge your error and blame RW for being “…ambiguous, intentionally or not.”

    This sort of uncivil and unprincipled discourse will NOT lead a higher understanding of these questions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bruce

    This is perhaps the most important, and the very best blog article you have ever had published at MIA

    This is the perfect blog response to be read following Robert Whitaker’s provocative blog titled “Is Remaking Psychiatric Care Possible.”

    This is a highly insightful and penetrating analysis of just how deeply entrenched and essential psychiatry (and their entire Medical Model) is for the future survival of modern capitalist society.

    Neither psychiatry NOR capitalism can exist in the future WITHOUT the other. Both are major impediments to the future of human progress, and any hopes for reform of either one are both undesirable AND impossible.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Capitalism evolved into Imperialism (spreading its oppressive tentacles over the entire planet, searching for new markets and cheaper labor).

    Recognizing this historical development of capitalism into Imperialism is both useful and informative, and in NO WAY does it somehow mean that we are denying, and/or minimizing the oppressive nature of capitalism as a system of human exploitation.

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    I support your use of the term “biological psychiatry” as you clarified its use here. It is is very important to recognize and define what has taken place over the last 4 decades with the incredible growth of the Medical Model and the powerful rise (at its head) of an evolving institution of psychiatry “on steroids.”

    Our grandmother’s and grandfather’s psychiatry was always oppressive from its inception, and defining how psychiatry has morphed into “biological psychiatry” does NOT have to mean we are somehow giving the earlier incarnations of psychiatry some sort of “pass.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “I suppressed a momentary urge to bang my head against the cinderblock wall. THEN I SIGNED DR. G’S TREATMENT PLAN {emphasis added} and hoped I had planted at least a seed of curiosity.”

    So the good doctor thinks he “planted a seed” and then went right ahead and signed off on this poor patient’s horrible “MISTREATMENT PLAN,” so she could be labeled and drugged with oppressive mind altering substances. This doctor in charge would have been much better off (and taken a much better moral stand) to have actually banged his head “against the cinderblock wall.”

    What happened to the oath to “do no harm?” Who will take responsibility when this poor patient suffers even greater decline in her life because she believes she has a “disease,” and becomes dependent on benzos and/or antidepressant psychiatric drugs?

    This article, not only tells us everything that is wrong with today’s oppressive Medical Model, but ALSO, what is wrong with how morally deficient the response is by those who think they know better. Just let the “cabaret” carry on!!!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Someone Else

    Not really. The founding FATHERS, while expousing general concepts of “freedom” and “civil rights,” were very much stuck in developing a system ruled by the propertied classes of white men.

    Black people were declared to be 3 fifths of a human being, and women had no right to vote. The working class of laborers were terribly exploited AND the first 100 years of American expansionism and growth was built on the blood and sweat of the American slave system.

    There would be no U.S. imperialist empire without this oppressive history of slavery, and then, of course, we had the wholesale destruction of native peoples and their culture.

    This is just the beginning of a very sordid history of conquest and exploitation leading to the U.S. being the most powerful and wealthiest country in the world with LESS THAN 5% of the world’s population.

    And finally yes, it is the birthplace of biological psychiatry (psychiatry on steroids) that now dominates the entire planet with its oppressive labels, toxic drugs, and forced incarceration and control – “God Bless America.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Phoebe

    This was a well told story of your complicated relationship with psychiatric drugs. It is a very sobering and pragmatic assessment of this relationship, and you do not seem to buy into psychiatry’s “chemical imbalance” theory or overly romanticize the benefits of these drugs.

    What is missing for many readers is a more in depth understanding of the connection of your history of psychological distress and your history of trauma. There is only one brief mention of you working on trauma issues in therapy.

    Without some understanding of (and a more in depth presentation) of the environmental factors that may have led to your distress and difficulty focusing and completing important tasks in life, people are left to speculation as to what are the causative factors for these problems. And if a trauma history was, in fact, a central factor in the onset of your difficult struggles in life, what kinds of trauma help (“treatment”) is actually effective and can (in some instances) mitigate the necessity to rely on mind altering drugs as means to coping with a troubled world.

    Of course, a trauma narrative is a deeply personal thing, and you are under no obligation to share this story in your blog, nor am I suggesting you do so. I am only suggesting that it is difficult for readers to reconcile all these complex issues and compromises related to taking psychiatric drugs without knowing essential details of the overall narrative, including what forms of trauma help was accessed (or not accessed), and what was most helpful.

    I admire how much you have accomplished in life and your resilience in the face of such enormous obstacles presented by a very harmful Disease/Drug based Medical Model that dominates the “mental health” system. Thank you for sharing this story.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead says:

    “Again, this is a false issue and even discussing it as though it is otherwise falls into the Pharma trap.”

    Oldhead, it was not I who initially mocked this entire blog with the statement:

    “I can’t believe this. Pill Shamers Unite!!”

    Regardless, what terminology we use (and I’m fine with letting Big Pharma and psychiatry own “pill shaming” here on in) the issue of some psychiatric survivors experiencing “shame” (within the movement) for still using some kind of psychiatric drug, DOES EXIST. And your denial of this issue, only contributes to this phenomena.

    Sera and Caroline’s blog only dealt with this issue as one SMALL PART of their overall message, but grasping this particular aspect IS important to thoroughly understanding the totality of their nuanced analysis of the “pill shaming” phenomena.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Some people still want to be dismissive of this entire blog and topic – which has had a very long and educational discussion.

    They want to deny that “pill shaming” can even exist within our movement against psychiatric abuse.

    I think Julie Greene’s comment – https://www.madinamerica.com/2019/06/pill-shaming-phenomenon-whats-it-really-about/#comment-157622 – and reaction resonates strongly with my views on this topic.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JanCarol

    Close friends and family members (or clients you’re trying to help on a one to one basis) are a different matter all together than making general public statements. either written or verbal.

    I think we should find any, and all, opportunities to educate and help people (close friends, family, and clients) become less reliant on and/or drug free, for all the reasons you stated.

    Like any personal (or sensitive subject) we should tread lightly and be mindful of how much these people can handle challenging subjects, or whether or not we have real open and honest avenues of dialogue between us.

    We must bear in mind that most people already feel “less than” because they are on these drugs, and also usually have a demeaning label to go with it. Some will even hide their drug taking from us because they know our strong views (regarding negative effect etc.) on the subject. And they may fully agree on an intellectual level.

    But there are some people who get down to one drug (from a big cocktail) and just can’t seem to get off that last small dose. They may function overall quite well otherwise with few related medical issues. They have to proceed at their own pace on these questions and NEVER be made to feel less than because they are still not drug free.

    But ALL public blame and shame (even with people with serious drug problems) should be directed at the profit driven capitalist system and the class of people who run it. It is THEY and THEIR SYSTEM that have created the material conditions (trauma, stress, violence war etc.) that cause people to be so alienated, stressed out, and just plain unable to cope with this oppressive environment.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera and Caroline

    This was a great blog that covered every aspect of this issue from every angle, including ALL the nuances that could be misunderstood and/or turned back on the authors.

    It must be VERY frustrating when MIA commenters don’t take the time to read and consider the essential content of what you are struggling about here.

    You correctly put the major onus and overall responsibility on the larger examples of systemic power and oppression.

    We should NEVER EVER blame or shame anyone form the masses for taking, and/or becoming dependent on (or even addicted to), ANY mind altering substance. OR for using them simply as a means to better cope with a “sick” world and environment that surrounds them.

    This oppressive world has so many ways to crush human resilience and render one’s coping mechanisms ineffectual, or just not enough to get by at any given moment.

    In their lifetime some people may NEVER be able to move beyond some form of need or dependency on some type of drug, AND that makes them NO LESS of a person. Nor does it make them someone who cannot somehow contribute to making this world a better place, if they so choose to be a part of this struggle.

    OF COURSE, in a ONE TO ONE conversation with someone, who was open to the idea of strengthening their coping skills, and/or becoming less reliant on mind altering drugs as a way to cope with the world, I would do my best to share more info on all the negative aspects of these drugs, and discuss (and sometimes even challenge them) about working on alternative ways to strengthen and add to one’s coping skills.

    BUT in any public commentary or written statements, THIS is where we should focus ALL issues of blame, shame and responsibility on the “Powers That Be.” Call it, SHAMING AND BLAMING OUR OPPRESSORS and their entire profit driven, meat grinder of a System.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • One thing to consider in this entire discussion about terminology.

    Quite literally, the major power brokers (psychiatry and Big Pharma) promoting the Medical Model and ALL their false terminology, have spent several hundred BILLION dollars on misguided and corrupt research AND advertising over the past 4 decades, promoting the biggest PR hoax the world has EVER seen throughout all of human history. Someone please name another PR hoax that compares.

    Every time we give ANY scientific legitimacy to their diagnostic labels and terms like “mental health” or “mental illness” or call psychiatric drugs “medications,” we end up somehow validating that their money (actually it’s our money when you consider who produces real value in society) was well spent on transforming our linguistic paradigm to justify and reinforce oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Great blog and I agree with your position on this matter. We are being MORE SCIENTIFIC when we avoid using these labels and/or let readers know they are spurious.

    And I think the exact same argument can be made about NOT EVER calling psychiatric drugs “medications.” They are clearly mind altering drugs that are NOT “medicating” anything at a cellular level, let alone some kind of “disease.” We are being MORE scientific when we refuse to call them “medication.”

    And while we’re at it, let’s be clear about the term “mental health.” (Paula, please take note of this point because you did use this term without quotation marks.) Socially different ideas, thoughts, feelings, and behavior are NOT “sick” or “unhealthy.” We are reinforcing the Medical Model every time we use those words without some type of challenge.

    Let’s be historically clear about how revolutionary change occurs in the world. It often starts with challenging certain language and terminology that wreaks of the oppression of the old order.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rosalee

    Thank you for those kind comments. Here is a second song you may be very interested in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R6djpTt32w

    And yes, I am coming out with my first CD the first week of July – a dozen songs (including the two above) backed up by many instruments, including violin, dobro, drums, piano, cello, pennywhistle, drums, and Great Highland Bagpipes. I’ll keep you posted when the time comes. Thanks for listening.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Having worked in a community mental health clinic as a therapist for 22 years, ALL OF THIS sounds painfully very familiar.

    The Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex is so deeply and firmly entrenched in modern capitalist society, that NOTHING short of a Revolution can dislodge this form of systemic oppression.

    Attempting to focus on reforming this System is an illusion. Fighting for “reforms” should ONLY be viewed as an important means to prepare minds and organize forces to get rid of this System once and for all.

    The profit system ultimately corrupts everything it touches, and it stands as THE major obstacle to the overall progress of human society on a worldwide basis.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This blog raises some very important points about psychiatric drugs being used in society as a means to stifle political upheaval.

    Just to add to the auhtor’s main point: any political movement for positive change always involves an “advanced” contingent of people stepping forward and initiating resistance. This “advanced” core of activists acts a “catalyst” for broader rebellion by providing leadership and inspiration to all those who follow.

    It is MORE than just interesting to note that in today’s society, some of those sections of the masses MOST HEAVILY drugged have historically been those SAME people MOST LIKELY to be that “advanced” core of activists leading political rebellion.

    In today’s world this includes, minorities, prisoners, women, rebellious youth, and other political outliers and outcasts.

    This is why psychiatry and their entire Medical Model has now become TOO IMPORTANT AND VALUABLE to the ruling classes to be allowed to fail, or somehow be stripped of its power to drug AND incarcerate people without due process or respect for civil rights.

    Great blog, Melody. Richard

    Report comment

  • The fight to abolish psychiatry is really on the radical edge of the overall struggle to end all forms of psychiatric abuse and the entire Medical Model.

    The above mentioned struggle is really one of the newest waves of Human Rights struggles in the world.

    And as such, any and all political exposure and organizing done (including here at MIA) as a part of this Human Rights struggle, can play an important role in raising consciousness and resistance against the ultimate source of modern day oppression – a class based capitalist/imperialist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bruce

    I believe that psychiatry can neither be “delegitimized” nor “abolished” under the capitalist system. As an institution, psychiatry has now become (over the last several decades) TOO important to the “Powers that Be” to be allowed to fail or lose its Executive power to drug and/or incarcerate people against their will.

    The vital position of Big Pharma in the U.S. economy with its high profit margins (in its collusion with psychiatry and the meteoric expansion of psych drug sales), AND the increasingly important role of psychiatry to label and anesthetize (and thus render ineffective) the more potentially rebellious sections of U.S. society, makes it highly unlikely the ruling class will do (or allow) ANYTHING to weaken psychiatry.

    In a truly just and Revolutionary society, psychiatry would immediately be stripped of all medical legitimacy and Executive powers that involve any kind of FORCE. At the same time, all of psychiatry’s pseudo-scientific and paternalistic theories and activities would be openly criticized and ridiculed through a People controlled media.

    In this way (outlined above) psychiatry would eventually lose ALL credibility and interest from the masses of people, and thus simply “wither away” from society. THIS is how psychiatry will ultimately be “abolished” from the face of the earth.

    The word “abolish” should STILL be used today to describe our movement here among the more radical activists. This is true even though in a Revolutionary society the actual process will one of “withering away.” The word “Abolish” has a more radical and unifying effect among the more advanced activists, and clearly identifies psychiatry as the extremely oppressive institution it truly IS in the world today.

    Richard (BTW, Great blog!)

    Report comment

  • Fred

    The following was my response in a recent blog to a question about the future of psychiatry:

    “In a JUST world ,where real science was taught to regular physicians, they would know that “psychosis” could occur from certain medical conditions, and then act accordingly. This DOES NOT require the need for psychiatry.

    In a JUST world, those people currently labeled as genuine dissident psychiatrists, could either choose to do therapy (and now call themselves therapists) OR choose to become neurologists, for which there is genuine science to describe certain actual brain disorders and the respective forms of legitimate treatment.

    There is NO science to justify the existence of medicalizing psychological distress and responding to these problems as if they required medical “treatment.”

    The existence of modern psychiatry has a definite role in shifting people’s attention away from the inherent systemic problems (injustice and inequality) within the class based capitalist system.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Fred I agree with Kindredspirit about the candidness of your responses and your willingness to be open to all ideas and criticisms, if they ring true. I, also know that dissident psychiatrists can be open to many attacks for operating outside the confines of the oppressive Medical Model paradigm.

    There is a Dr. Kelmenson who posts blogs here (with some good points) but has often promoted a “blame the victim” political line about the “willingness” of psych patients to take drugs and accept diagnoses and disability benefits.

    My response to this has been that in a ONE TO ONE conversation with such a person I would definitely challenge their acceptance of psychiatric labels and believing they are disabled, or any other approach of accepting less in life.

    HOWEVER, publicly when addressing these issues I would NEVER EVER place ANY blame on the masses for ANY collective sense of low self esteem or desire to numb themselves from a trauma filled world. We must ALWYS place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the “powers that be.”

    NOBODY IS BORN THIS WAY! It is a powerful ruling class (including the leaders of Big Pharma and psychiatry) who have created a world and a System that all too often crushes the human spirit, and some people end up accepting less in life and will engage in many type of self defeating behaviors. This is NOT their fault.

    We must always point the finger of blame directly towards those people, institutions, and classes in society who DIRECTLY BENEFIT from any human being accepting the concept of “mental illness” and all the disability diagnoses and drugs that may go with it.

    Fred, thanks for writing and staying down in the difficult trenches in the comment section.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Dr. Moss

    I appreciate that you are speaking out about the problems with the Medical Model and writing about it here at MIA.

    However, I have some SERIOUS problems with part of the way you are characterizing the problem here.

    I will preface my criticism by letting you know that I worked for 22 years in community mental heath as an LMHC, with a strong focus on addiction issues. All those years I fought the take over of Biological Psychiatry and the Disease/Drug/Based Medical Model. I have multiple blogs here at MIA that make my positions quite clear on the problems with the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex.

    You stated the following:

    “All of this points to the reality that mental illness may provide the beholder some unique benefits. A payoff. What inherent benefits or payoffs may exist for identifying oneself as mentally ill?”

    First off, you did NOT put “mental Illness” in quotes. These are NOT medical problems people are dealing with here, but major conflicts with their environment that cause extreme forms of psychological distress. To make big changes in the world we must FIRST challenge the language of an oppressive status quo.

    Secondly, before we should EVER talk about the so-called “unique benefits” of a “mental health” diagnosis, we must FIRST thoroughly expose and analyze ALL the harm done by psychiatric labels. You did not do this. You placed an emphasis on the so-called “benefits.” This, unfortunately, gives power to, and reinforces, some of the negative stereotypes that exist in society about people with psychiatric labels who are declared “disabled” and receiving benefits.

    With some other more aware counselors I worked with over the years, we used the phrase “secondary gain” to describe the phenomena you are describing about people deriving some MINOR benefits from a “mental health” diagnosis.

    BUT notice the term “SECONDARY GAIN,” this is a far better way to characterize this issue, AND a far more accurate description that acknowledges the PRIMARY HARM and oppressive nature of psychiatric diagnoses.

    EVERYONE with a psychiatric diagnosis is PRIMARILY harmed by it, even if they are not currently conscious of this harm. While there may be surface benefits from these labels, do you really think these people are happy, and living lives to the fullest of their human potential???

    For anyone to accept a psychiatric diagnosis (and all the implications of said diagnosis) is a certain recipe to accept less in life. These diagnoses are psychologically crippling and the equivalence of “mental chains.”

    People who have unfortunately “bought into” the concept of a “mental health” diagnosis, are very much victims of a very oppressive System that has *brain washed* millions of people into believing a false narrative about the origins of psychological distress in society.

    We should NEVER talk about so-called “benefits” of psychiatric diagnoses without FIRST discussing the fact that people in society are victims of the biggest PR hoax ever successfully promoted in human society.

    Big Pharma and psychiatry have literally spent several hundred BILLION dollars over 4 decades to promote its false narrative about “chemical imbalances” and so-called “mental illness.” All of their “genetic theories of original sin” serve to hide (and misdirect people away from ) the inherent inequalities and forms of trauma in a class based capitalist society, that are the REAL causative factors for extreme psychological distress.

    We should NEVER write an article about people “LOVING” their diagnosis or gaining “BENEFITS” from it, without making it DOMINATELY clear where we are placing blame for ALL the psychological chains that are crippling human beings, and preventing us from obtaining REAL freedom and the fullest of our human potential.

    Fred, I hope you are open to important feedback about some of the problems with this blog.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    No that does not answer the question.

    No where in any of these quotes you cited above is there a single reference to an anti-psychiatry position being “ultra-left.”

    What WAS called “ultra-left” here is a political position that labels potential friends and allies as part of the camp of the “enemy.”

    That is, a political stance that demands that people be “all the way” anti-psychiatry NOW. And if they (especially someone who might be a professional) will not accept the anti-psychiatry label (or someone’s definition of this label) then they must be working for the interests of psychiatry, and therefore be opposed and degraded.

    Unfortunately, the term “ultra-left” has different meanings to different people.

    My definition implies that someone with an “ultra-left” position is jumping stages in the development of a political movement. That is, not seeing how a radical political movement actually develops over time. And not developing a strategy and set of tactics that will have chance for victory.

    A consistent “ultra-left” position appears “radical” and “left” on the surface but its strategy and tactics actually disrupts the ability to gather allies through education and struggle over the long haul.

    I prefer to not argue over the definition of “ultra-left,” because of its different meanings to different people. And for that reason I will no longer use it to identify this wrong approach I am challenging in some of Oldhead’s comments.

    To avoid fighting over definitions, lets get to the heart of the matter here. I will ask you Kindredspirit, (and others) the question I raised in the above comment:

    “Just because someone is not yet ready to identify as “anti-psychiatry” (despite decades of fighting against all forms of psychiatric abuse and the Medical Model) should they somehow be discarded and labeled as if they represent the other “side?”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead states the following: “It is bizarre that to refer to abolitionist AP sentiment as “ultra-left” …”

    Exactly who and where (please show the exact quote) has anyone in the comment section called an *anti-psychiatry* stance as being “ultra-left.”

    Oldhead states the following: “and that someone talks about OUR “drawing lines” between survivors and professionals ”

    Exactly who and where (please show the exact quote) has anyone talked about “drawing line” between survivors and professionals”

    And when Oldhead states the following:

    “I think the response — as well as the undercurrent of hostility — draws a clear line regarding what “side” LC represents.”

    I ask the question, exactly what “side” is Oldhead saying that Lee Coleman represents?

    If someone cannot honestly and accurately sum up (given the totality of Lee Coleman’s history of activism) what “side” he is on when it comes to fighting psychiatric oppression, then how do they expect to unite anyone to be a part of any kind of anti-psychiatry movement?

    Just because someone is not yet ready to identify as “anti-psychiatry” (despite decades of fighting against all forms of psychiatric abuse and the Medical Model) should they somehow be discarded and labeled as if they represent the other “side?”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Alex

    I am not clear on your point here. You obviously have some issues with how Lee Coleman responded to your above comments, That’s fine and certainly open for your critique.

    But are you prepared to put him in the camp of the enemy, simply because he does not completely agree with your exact approach? And thus negate all the positive work he is doing in his critique of the oppressive Medical Model

    Do you not see the danger of ultra-left positions when dealing with potential allies in Human Rights struggles?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rachel

    I agree with you.

    In a JUST world ,where real science was taught to regular physicians, they would know that “psychosis” could occur from certain medical conditions, and then act accordingly. This DOES NOT require the need for psychiatry.

    In a JUST world, those people currently labeled as genuine dissident psychiatrists, could either choose to do therapy (and now call themselves therapists) OR choose to become neurologists, for which there is genuine science to describe certain actual brain disorders and the respective forms of legitimate treatment.

    There is NO science to justify the existence of medicalizing psychological distress and responding to these problems as if they required medical “treatment.”

    The existence of modern psychiatry has a definite role in shifting people’s attention away from the inherent systemic problems (injustice and inequality) within the class based capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead makes the following statement summing up Lee Coleman’s position:

    “I think the response — as well as the undercurrent of hostility — draws a clear line regarding what “side” LC represents.”

    This is a classic example of an ultra-left position that fails to distinguish “friends from enemies.” This is not a winning strategy to end all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Any objective analysis of Lee Coleman’s views and social role would recognize that he is doing very important work exposing the entire oppressive paradigm of the Medical Model AND delivering serious blows to the institution of psychiatry.

    Just because he does not YET have an ‘all the way” position advocating for the abolishment of psychiatry, DOES NOT somehow put him in the camp of the enemy, as Oldhead strongly implies.

    No wonder Lee Coleman and others are turned off from dialoguing with people pushing a strong anti-psychiatry position. Ultra-left positions can be very damaging when it comes to “uniting all who can be united” against a common enemy.

    Of course there will be many important and powerful activists like Lee Coleman who still want to cling to preserving some old institutions from the old order. Call it “holding on to some remains of class privilege” or still wanting to believe their psychiatric medical credentials are worth something.

    As a firm anti-psychiatry activist, I believe that dissident psychiatrists have an important role to play working inside the “System.” Using their criticisms of the Medical Model, they can disrupt any, and all, gatherings of psychiatry everywhere on the planet. Their medical credentials will also provide them platforms to speak out on that many of us will never be invited to speak.

    Dissident psychiatrists can also use their credentials (for many decades) to promote some science regarding psych drug withdrawal and help those psychiatric survivors attempting to come off psych drugs.

    Psychiatry’s future is inseparably bound to the future of the entire capitalist/imperialist system. It is TOO VALUABLE to preserving the status quo to be allowed to go out of existence in this historical era OR be allowed to lose its executive power to incarcerate troublesome dissidents threatening the capitalist system.

    Thank you Lee Coleman for writing this blog and all that you do fighting the Medical Model.

    And I found your reference to the great revolutionary brother, George Jackson, very interesting and important to the evolution of your thinking, and also to many others who came to revolutionary consciousness during the 60’s era.

    Keep writing!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    I believe that your blogs have made some very good exposure of the oppressive Disease/Drug Based/Medical Model.

    While it seems like you are making a major break from the practice and ideology of psychiatry in today’s world, your overall analysis is being held back from having a MUCH MORE powerful impact because you are still holding on to some deeply embedded ideological beliefs that justify and support a class based capitalist system.

    We all have much work to do to escape those indoctrinated ways of thinking that undermine our belief that those people on the bottom rungs of society can some day truly rise up and throw off ALL their chains. This includes those mental chains that inhibit us from all becoming creative agents of change, and believing that we can run society far better than those people who exploit others for their own power and gain.

    Our movement should involve not only rejecting psychiatry’s Disease Model with all their labels and drugs, but also the more modern day caste system that has us actually voting for a new person every four years to legitimize this same insanity over and over again.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Yes, Dr Kelmenson has indeed accepted (hook line and sinker, as the expression goes) a very negative and one-sided view of human nature. This is a view that is very consistent with all the apologists and defenders of a class based capitalist system.

    This view states the following: that poor people and other sections of people are on the bottom rungs of society are there because they somehow lack the drive and/or the intelligence to “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” to make it in this “dog eat dog world.”

    I believe it was the African revolutionary Franz Fanon who wrote about African people having a collective sense of low self-esteem and submission to their oppressors.

    BUT BUT BUT, Fanon NEVER EVER blamed the victims for their plight. He was very aware of the long history of the most extreme forms of colonial and imperialistic oppression that can literally crush the human spirit and severely limit a human being’s ability to fight back against their oppressors.

    If I am having a ONE ON ONE conversation with someone (be they a friend and/or a client in a therapy session) and I believe they have somehow incorporated, and/or bought into a victim mentality, of course, I will try to find the ways to challenge (over time) some of their beliefs and patterns of behavior that might be holding them back from making progress in life WHERE IT IS POSSIBLE.

    BUT I WILL NEVER EVER PLACE COLLECTIVE BLAME ON THE MASSES OF VICTIMS OF HIGHLY SYSTEMIC AND INSTITUTIONALIZED FORMS OF OPPRESSION. TO DO SO, IS TO DO THE DIRTY WORK OF OUR ENEMIES.

    Dr. Kelmenson if you choose to continue to promote these negative and one-sided views of human nature, why don’t you provide the scientific evidence to back up such a narrow and stigmatizing perspective.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • While this blog has some good exposure of psychiatry and the omnipotent growth of the Medical Model, it suffers from the following mistaken themes:

    1) It tends to glorify the myth of the American Dream, by minimizing the amount of trauma and violence that exists in America. And yes, poverty is a form of violence. It is written from the perspective of a privileged white American who fails to grasp the class and racial oppression faced by minorities and poor working class people over the past several hundred years.

    2) It ignores the fact that over the last 4 decades Big Pharma (colluding with psychiatry) engineered, by far, the single largest public relations hoax the world has ever seen. Quite literally, hundreds of billions of dollars has been spent on a very clever and effective PR campaign that continues as we speak – prescriptions for all these mind altering drugs continues to go up every year.

    3) The pharmaceutical industry has become a major cog in the U.S. capitalist economy bringing in some of the highest rates of profit of any known industry. Psychiatric drugs have been a major part of this growth, especially over the last 3 decades.

    4) Psychiatry and the Medical Model has now evolved into a major and necessary form of social control, especially for the more volatile sections of society that could pose a future rebellious risk for the U.S. empire.

    5) SSRI antidepressants are NOT placebos. Yes, they have a placebo effect on some people, but they are also mind numbing drugs that cause many other physical and psychological problems because THEY ACTUALLY PERTURB THE SERTONERGIC SYSTEM IN THE BRAIN AND BODY. This can cause numerous physical and psychological dysfunction and stressors, including major withdrawal syndromes.

    6) Most people DO NOT know that benzodiazepine drugs are addictive. They have been indoctrinated by Big Pharma and psychiatry and then misled by doctors who prescribe them inappropriately.

    7) Dr. Kelmenson continues his theme of “blame the victim” when he makes statements like “Psychiatry feeds off people surrendering their free will and abdicating their personal responsibility…” Again, this statement ignores the overall effects of the world’s largest public relations hoax in human history, and the desperate nature of people who have experienced trauma and other forms of alienation in a commodity relations (and class based) dominated world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Alex

    Nothing, and/or nobody, can transcend class based identities or ideologies until we ultimately get rid of classes from the planet. The working class (as defined by their relationship to the means of production) is the only class that has an historical mission to create the material conditions in the world where it will some day go out of existence. That is, there will be no classes anymore of any kind.

    The working class (those who hold no wealth or property of consequence) must seize power and run society for the interests of the majority. And slowly over many many generations (through education and cooperation) slowly eliminate the material basis for there to be any class distinctions in the world.

    The goal is to create a world where everyone can be both a “thinker and a doer,” and live by the principle of “from each according to his/her abilities to each according to their need.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead, you keep raising “self-determination” as a diversion to avoid dealing with the fact that you are openly opposing a broad based anti-psychiatry organization and movement that would clearly link psychiatry to a profit based capitalist system.

    You keep doing this by over emphasizing the contradictions that exist between survivors and various kinds of other people (including professionals) working inside the oppressive “mental health” system. You also negate the critical role that the family members of survivors could play in such an organization.

    You seem to want a movement that is divided up into multiple groups formed primarily by “identity” and not by class (or one’s ideological stance against psychiatry). This is NOT the approach taken by a genuine class conscious radical activist.

    Need I remind you that the leaders (and other rank and file members) of the Black Panthers became more and more Marxist towards the end of that organizations existence.

    A small number of these activists later joined multinational communist organizations, and this is clearly where some the Panthers most important leaders were headed before that organization’s destruction. It is clear that these more class conscious members of this organization were moving beyond *identity politics* in their political evolution.

    What happened to you?

    Report comment

  • Alex

    I fully acknowledged in my above statement that the terms “self-empowerment” and “self-determination” have both individual and collective short term historical value.

    All I am pointing out, especially to those who adhere to a class analysis of society, that we have to be moving much more in the direction of “collective empowerment” and “collective determination.” Or any other terms or terminology that describes human beings beginning to think and act in a *collective* way toward freedom and a world free of all forms of oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Society is most fundamentally divided into classes in this historical era. Without a class analysis (and a strategy deriving from that analysis) we will get absolutely nowhere fast.

    For society and political movements to FULLY advance beyond capitalism, we must also advance beyond terminology and labels such as “SELF-empowerment”, SELF-determination” etc.

    While these terms and their corresponding political actualization in the today’s world have some short term value, they also have limitations that will NOT get us beyond “nationalism” and “identity” politics to a unified class approach toward real revolutionary change.

    Report comment

  • Steve

    You said: “Antipsychiatry is rejected by most anti-capitalists; it cannot become “closely linked” to anti-capitalism.”

    That is part of the important work that Left Wing anti-psychiatry activists have in the coming period. We must make all the very real connections between psychiatry and capitalism and educate the more conscious activists.

    Since more and more people are being drugged and harm by the Medical Model, these links are not that hard to make. And when we make some headway on this, it will help energize a vital human rights struggle in it infancy.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I would add these slight changes to your summation:

    Psychiatry is a subset problem of a much larger problem, that is a very oppressive capitalist system that overwhelmingly harms the vast majority of people on the planet, ALL for the benefit of a relatively tiny propertied class of power hungry exploiters. This class based profit system stands as THE major obstacle to advancing human progress on the planet.

    Report comment

  • Instead of trying to tell professionals what to do, why aren’t you advocating for ALL anti-psychiatry activists to unite around an advanced anti-psychiatry set of principles (including linking the Medical Model to capitalism).

    With your current approach, next you will be calling for women to have their own separate anti-psychiatry org. then Black people, then gay people etc. and the list could go on and on. This makes no sense at all coming from someone who claims to be a highly CLASS CONSCIOUS ANTI-CAPITALIST ACTIVIST.

    Report comment

  • In the capitalist “market place of ideas” anti-psychiatry is easily tolerated as “just another idea in the marketplace among millions of other ideas.”

    But when anti-psychiatry becomes more and more closely linked with a growing movement against capitalism, then and only then, will it get the attention it deserves. Because it will now become a threat to the very class of people that the Medical Model overall serves and protects.

    Report comment

  • Lee

    I appreciate very much all that you are writing about and doing to combat all forms of psychiatric oppression. Your above cited paragraphs do touch on the outskirts of the points I raised, but obviously not deep enough to suit my liking, or what I think is critically necessary for us to do in our exposure of the entire oppressive Medical Model paradigm.

    Our movement (in its infancy) is fundamentally a human rights struggle. I believe that it is now essential that all modern day human rights struggles closely link their movements to a broader movement against a profit based capitalist system.

    This does NOT mean that people must be totally convinced or united around the belief that the world needs socialism or a classless communist world (which is my firm belief). They only need to see the serious problems and connections between the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex AND the way the profit motive corrupts science, medicine, the environment etc. and everything else it touches.

    If we fail to do this (for the fear of alienating potential allies) then we will miss important opportunities to draw the increasing more obvious links between psychiatric oppression and a class based capitalist system.

    Historically, when human rights movements start off “watering down” their analysis of oppression (in order to go super broad), it almost always leads into reformism and co-optation by the “Powers That Be.”

    So I would say a slogan that was often said in the 60’s as an important strategic method: “Unite the advanced first to win over the intermediate and neutralize the backward.”

    And when you think about how volatile the world is today, we don’t have the time to wait around for people to somehow grow tired of the capitalist system. In the mean time this planet will be destroyed by either environmental destruction and/or imperialist wars, both directly tied to capitalism.

    So we must take every AND any opportunity to expose capitalism as we also expose psychiatric oppression – because , in the real world, they are truly deeply connected. We are simply telling the people the truth when we do this kind of political exposure.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Lee

    This blog provides some very insightful exposure of the entire Disease/Drug/Based Medical Model and the enormous harm it causes in the world.

    HOWEVER, it is missing one very important piece for truly understanding the dangerous role that this oppressive paradigm of “treatment” is playing in today’s world. AND also, how we might go about putting it in the “dustbin of history.”

    The blog DOES NOT explain why the current status quo (today’s profit based capitalist system) needs to have a psychiatric institution focusing people’s attention on “genetic theories of original sin” (that is, genetic or intrinsic flaws in the human species) that somehow accounts for all the social inequalities, trauma, violence, wars etc. that human beings inflict on one another.

    The big question here (the elephant in the room) is: where do all these so-called symptoms (extreme human psychological distress) that gets labeled as “mental illness” originate from? The “Powers That Be” want people looking “inward” and not at the inherent flaws in the various forms of social organization that predominate this particular historical era in the world.

    It is these systemic flaws in social and economic organization in society that creates most all the stressors, and various forms of social inequalities and violence that push the human species to various types of breaking points in psychological tolerance.

    Psychiatry (over the last 40 years) has now become a vital and necessary form of social control (and deliberate attempt to distract the masses from the actual origins of their psychological distress) for the overall preservation of this profit based capitalist system. THE FUTURE OF PSYCHIATRY HAS NOW BECOME INSEPARABLE FROM THE HISTORICAL FUTURE OF CAPITALISM ITSELF.

    And to those whose comments here are saying we need to simply explode the “myth of mental illness” and then psychiatry will disappear, are also sadly missing this key part of the analysis about the connections of modern psychiatry to the capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    This blog contains some very important exposure of the many crimes committed by psychiatry regarding the myth of the “chemical imbalance” theory, the proliferation of antidepressant prescriptions, and the overall denial of major withdrawal syndromes.

    However, I must take major issue with the themes in your last concluding paragraph. You said:

    ” Instead of declaring war, psychiatry should offer solutions on how it wants to combat severe and persistent antidepressant withdrawal. And it is important that psychiatry and clinical psychology reconcile, because, ultimately, we are on the same mission. Our purpose is to help people with mental health problems. Let’s not forget this, even amidst fierce scientific debates.”

    First off, psychiatry declared “war” on human beings many decades ago with all their inhumane forms of so-called” treatment.” Many decades ago it was lobotomies, ECT, and snake pit asylums etc. and then its steroid driven collusion with Big Pharma led to their evolution into Biological Psychiatry and its pseudo-scientific DSM diagnoses and labels, more ECT, worldwide psych drugging in the hundreds of millions, more forced “treatment”, and “genetic theories of original sin” etc.

    Then, asking psychiatry to “offer solutions” to the very problems which justify their existence and make them large sums of money and prestige, is like asking Dracula to “suck water” instead of blood – ain’t going to happen! This does not mean there are not some (a tiny minority) of psychiatrists who legitimately help people, but we need to look at the institution (and its oppressive social role in society) as a whole here when making these types of proposals.

    AND, do you REALLY want to “reconcile” with psychiatry, and are you “on the same mission” with them??? Maybe your purpose is to “help people”, but the institutional role of psychiatry is definitely the exact opposite. It is NOT a legitimate part of medicine (totally based on pseudo-science) and needs to be abolished from the planet. Let the more honest tiny minority of psychiatrists either become neurologists and/or become humane (rejecting the entire Disease/Drug Based Medical Model) therapists.

    And finally, please let go of the term “mental Health.” Ideas, thoughts, feeling, and out of the “norm” behaviors, are not “sick.” They are normal responses to abnormal conditions in a very much trauma filled and unjust world.

    The entire Medical Model of Biological Psychiatry exists as a way to take people’s attention (or their bodies and minds if they are incarcerated in psych hospitals) away from both understanding and then becoming creative agents of change to transform this “sick” world we live in, to a more humane place to call home.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • littleturtle

    You said: “who knows what lurks in our brains…”

    This sound quite ominous and actually reminds me of biological psychiatry’s “genetic theories of original sin.”

    I would say that nothing “lurks” within the human brain.

    IT, just like the actual person the brain resides in, is basically innocent and a clean slate at birth. It is the subsequent human interaction with the surrounding environment over time that determines what takes place in the brain.

    Love and nurturance will create a good result. Trauma and high levels of stress, not so much.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    This is a very important blog for many reasons. Not only does it further expose the entire “mental health” system, but it shows the major shortcomings and limitations in all these so-called “newest” and “highly innovative” and “cutting edge” reforms, that are nothing but regurgitated pablum that cannot escape the confines of a thoroughly corrupt system that can NEVER be reformed.

    This blog also raised issues of strategy and tactics for working “inside the Belly of the Beast.

    I loved all your “cutting edge” and appropriate use of sarcasm describing this personal and political nightmare.

    I can identify in some ways with your plight of being a “lone voice” in a sea of ignorance and arrogance. I felt that way in my 22 years working in community mental health. I know the tense feelings of being in a trainings where you know exactly what is so wrong with the presentation and you have to decide (in the moment and on your own) how to challenge the presenter without coming off as some “crazy disrupter.”

    The times I did little to speak up, led me to beat up on myself for weeks and months after the presentation. Some times your “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” But I always believe it is better to speak out and “shake the cage,” and then see what develops afterwards. There will always be someone (or a few people) who learn something and/or show support for what you have done.

    Working inside this system (knowing everything you know) is so difficult. I don’t think its futile that you have sought out ways to expose what happen to you, including going to the media. I think it is worth the effort because we just don’t know when a “single spark might ignite a prairie fire.” Just make sure you don’t get your expectations up to high. I think I was a little overly disappointed when my formal complaints to the Mass Dept. of Public Health and Dept. of Mental Health went absolutely nowhere.

    My only advice for future trainings like this is to try to never go alone. If you go with a few other people it will increase confidence and mutual support in the heat of the struggle. It will also help you sum up strategy and tactics as things develop.

    Sera, great work and great courage. My only question is: what is going to happen when this training attempts to take place in Western Mass.? Do they (Asist) have the balls to come to this territory after how they treated you?

    Carry on! Richard

    Report comment

  • Another reason why depression is a side effect (or main effect) of long term opiate use, is because people have expectations that they will feel better over the long run. These hopes are dashed on the rocks of reality.

    And then as people rely more and more on pain drugs (and don’t get better) their physical activity (basically no exercise) comes to a screeching halt. This lack of exercise becomes a major contributing factor to the onset of depression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • CatNight

    You said:”A relentless focus on reducing the number and dosage of opioid prescriptions is wreaking hell on people in intractable pain—while failing to treat addiction or reduce overdose deaths”

    Yes, it is wrong to recklessly rip people off of pain drugs. Responsible medicine needs to develop a very comprehensive and long term plan to help these people. This is especially true since THEY are responsible for this crisis of irresponsible “treatment.”

    But their needs to be a DRAMATIC reduction in the prescription of pain drugs in the future, especially beyond a few weeks. Log term use not only does not work but makes people worse off.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    Thanks for your heartfelt response. It was a mistake for me to have focused some of my major political points in this thread in response to your comments, no matter how provocative they might have been for me at the time.

    I can see that you indeed have a lot on your plate at this point in your life, and I truly hope you can make some headway in these struggles.

    Kindredspirit, I have always liked your overall comments and participation (as well) at MIA and have learned a lot from your perspective. I hope that can continue.

    Again, while I have feelings just like everyone here, I don’t ever mainly approach these questions in a personal way, nor do I feel attacked by you. And again, my use of my experience (fighting psychiatric oppression) and my related hatred of the institution was used as a way to make certain basic points about the basis of unity that can be possible in a growing movement.

    Kindredspirit, if you do not trust any professionals or other non-survivors enough to work with them in the early stages of a developing movement against psychiatric abuse, I will certainly respect that position. And I only wish the best for you in any endeavor you may engage in; be it personal OR Political.

    My main contention here in this dialogue at MIA (and it is where I should have solely directed myself) has been with the shape shifting positions put forward by Oldhead. He is the veteran political activist that claims to be operating from a Marxian class analysis.

    It can be a divisive process, and basically impossible to have principled dialogue with anyone who distorts one’s positions and and makes up “straw man” arguments to ridicule someone’s positions and misdirect a discussion. As I stated above, this unfortunate development will clearly influence exactly how I choose to engage on these vital questions in the future.
    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Apparently you are now attempting to speak for others in this dialogue and/or trying to direct and control the discussion.

    And then you proceed to totally misrepresent the content of my above comment. It is also interesting how you never respond to the main questions raised in my comment about the appropriate use of “pronouns” as a very real political question in this struggle. Instead you have chosen to diffuse and deflect. This is a very sad development in your role here.

    I have never made this “personal” or attempted to “guilt trip” anyone in this discussion. For you to make these mischaracterizations and distortions of my comments is totally unprincipled and an unfortunate development in your participation here.

    My above comment to Kindredspirit is very “political” in its essence. My sharing of my experience (and feelings) in the struggle against psychiatry and all forms of psychiatric abuse is to highlight the fact that people who work in the “mental health” field can be very much harmed by this system in multiple ways, AND they can have a clear stake in being a part of a movement to end this oppression. So yes, the movement against psychiatric abuse can be “our” movement.

    This was NOT pointed out as a way to compare degrees of oppression or somehow equate the experiences of these two groups of people. Nor does this somehow represent a “professional” trying to organize “survivors” or direct their struggle. These are all your words AND misrepresentations.

    This is pointed out to indicate that there can be a basis of unity for survivors to unite with a current minority of professionals and other workers in the field who clearly understand psychiatric oppression and are passionate and committed to fighting against this.

    These are clearly very strategic AND political questions about how to advance this particular human rights struggle. This is a fundamental question of trying to “Unite All Who Can Be United.”

    Oldhead, you said: “You have a history of defending professionals…”

    No one at MIA has been any harder on professionals than myself. Any review of my blogs and comments will bear this out. What I have refused to do is ATTACK potential friends who are misguided on a particular issue, and therefore drive them away from potential involvement in this movement.

    Oldhead, some of the latest positions you are taking on these questions AND especially some of your methods of struggle are clearly troubling.

    It is too bad that certain other people who are clearer on these questions have chosen not to participate. Perhaps they are disheartened by the very nature of how this entire process has proceeded. It will certainly dictate how I choose to engage in the future.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    While I would NEVER compare my experiences to that of a survivor, neither can you deny that some professionals and others working within the “mental health” system have been harmed by psychiatry and their Medical Model.

    I have fought against biological psychiatry (with 22 years in community MH clinic) for over 25 years, quite often putting my job and career on the line.

    I have witnessed psychiatry and their Disease/Drug Based Medical Model suck the life out people (people that I loved and cared for) with all their labeling and drugging.

    I have witnessed people being humiliated and emotionally crippled over many years by this system with their multiple cocktails of drugs and disabling forms of so-called “treatment.

    And I have had a number my long term clients die as result of body and brain destroying cocktails of drugs, including several who were driven on to combine their psych drugs with illegal drugs in the street. And I have a VERY close friend who has been deeply harmed by psychiatry with drugging and ECT (including as we speak) for over 25 years.

    To bear witness to all these forms of human destruction takes a toll on some of the more conscious people working in the field who know exactly what kind of damage is being done on a daily basis by this system.

    To me the sum total of these experiences (combined with my reading of hundreds of personal stories written by psychiatric survivors) has been traumatizing on some level. Again I would NEVER compare my experiences to that of an actual survivor, so please do not in any way say I am making such a comparison.

    But neither you nor I have possession of a “sincereometer” or some other device to measure one’s hatred of psychiatry and all the harm they do, and/or, have a way to measure the amount of passion and determination one possesses to rid the world of all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Some professionals (a very tiny minority at this point) such as Bonnie Burstow and Philip Hickey have easily proven their mettle in the struggle to rid the world of psychiatry and their Medical model.

    The small number of MH workers and other professionals who are anti-psychiatry at this time are HARDLY a threat to somehow “take over” any anti-psychiatry movement that would overwhelmingly have a membership comprised of mainly survivors.

    And the two professionals I mentioned above and myself are all in our 70’s. We won’t even be around much longer. We are really helping to do preparation for future struggles of the younger generation of activists that will be stepping forward in the future.

    And yes, I am proud to say, and I will continue to say, that I am very much a part of the movement to end all forms of psychiatric abuse, along with ending the entire profit based capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    I very much see the value and necessity of bringing forward and developing survivor leadership, and I don’t mean this in some kind of token way. BUT this does NOT mean there should be any second class status for anyone else participating in the anti-psychiatry movement.

    BTW, over many years at MIA there have been some extremely articulate and passionately dedicated family members of those deeply harmed by psychiatry, who would be excellent candidates to be active members in anti-psychiatry organizing. What possible reason could there be to deny them membership in an anti-psychiatry organization?

    And as far the issues of ‘honesty and trust” that Kindrespirit raised:

    In any political organization there is always going to be differences, and even conflicts over political agendas, egos, power and control issues etc. This is to be expected in any such political organization.There is NO guarantee there would ANY less conflict (around honesty and trust) in an all survivor organization.

    And as Frank brought up, how could anyone deny Dr. Philip Hickey or Bonnie Burstow membership in an anti-psychiatry organization? Their writings and overall activism has struck powerful blows against the oppressive institution of psychiatry. They have advanced our struggle FAR MORE than anyone currently commenting in this MIA dialogue.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • And I would add this point, what about the crucial role of FAMILY MEMBERS of people who have been harmed or killed by psychiatry and the Medical Model?

    Shouldn’t family members of psychiatric survivors be allowed to play a central role in the anti-psychiatry movement?

    Why would we, OR should, we ever place limitations on who we can unite against our common enemy?

    And I will repeat part of my above comment:

    “OF COURSE, any movement against psychiatric oppression should,BY ALL MEANS, promote AND bring forward survivor leadership. This is both politically necessary and basic commonsense when looking at the best ways to build various forms of human rights struggles.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I do NOT deny the role of “identity” being a significant organizing aspect in the history of various movements. Many movements organically began this way and it played a very positive role in the development of certain human rights struggles.

    HOWEVER, Oldhead, you are NOT some newbie just coming into consciousness as a survivor. You are a longtime veteran anti-capitalist radical who claims to be very much guided by a CLASS analysis of society and the world.

    To make a PRINCIPLE out of organizing around “identity” at this stage in your evolution as an a radical activist, is a huge step backward. And not just for you, but for the political organizing efforts you are making to advance a particular human rights struggle.

    And the very criticism you made of Sera above (“This is at best a petty bourgeois point of view.”) regarding her tendency of compartmentalizing various struggles and not drawing the links to the capitalist system, could be made of you when it comes to this question of “survivor only” anti-psychiatry groups. Do you not see how this can lead to the petty bourgeois careerism and narrow forms of reformism that derailed past political movements?

    At one time not too long ago you were advocating for anti-psychiatry organizing for ALL who would agree to a set of anti-psychiatry principles. Somehow you changed your position without ANY summation as to why this is necessary.

    And you have also NOT addressed any of my above comments about the negative aspects to setting up the basis for “classes” or second class tiers within modern day human rights struggles. You should be way beyond this type of self limiting aspects to political organizing.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said:

    “However stick to your writing, you should not be looking for “followers,” that’s not your role. The AP movement needs to be led by survivors; truly allied professionals should support our demands, which is their proper function.”

    This statement comes across as arrogant and nonsensical. Since when is it your role to tell people to “stay in their place” (apparently somewhere in the back of the bus) when it comes to building a movement against psychiatric abuse?

    Anyone AND everyone who is legitimately anti-psychiatry should be encourages to be a FULL PARTICIPANT in the struggle to abolish psychiatry and all the forms of oppression that come with that institution and its Medical Model.

    There should NEVER EVER be second class citizens in the struggle to end ANY AND ALL oppression in the world. To advocate for some type of “class” or “identity” division is completely contrary to the notion of taking a particular human rights struggle to its ultimate and final conclusion. Which in essence means moving far beyond a profit based capitalist system to a classless society.

    Your approach that is defined solely by identity, very often has historically led to reformist limitations to struggles where individual activists (and leaders) often morph into careerists and/or are co-opted by the system as a way to short circuit the overall struggle. In a small way the so-called “peer ” movement is a perfect example of such limitations and co-optation.

    OF COURSE, any movement against psychiatric oppression should,BY ALL MEANS, promote AND bring forward survivor leadership. This is both politically necessary and basic commonsense when looking at the best ways to build various forms of human rights struggles.

    But we need have an overall strategic approach that UNTIES ALL WHO CAN BE UNITED. Calling for separate groups based on “identity” or certain job classifications both within or outside the system, is no way to unite and consolidate people. Especially when such a position is put forward with an arrogant and misguided “know your place” attitude.

    We are better than this.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sam Ruck

    you said:

    “I don’t agree that capitalism is the problem. I believe an a-moral and unfettered capitalism is the problem.”

    With the above statement you are saying that there is somehow such a thing as “moral capitalism” and “fettered capitalism.” These kind of statements are ALL oxymorons AND utter nonsense.

    Capitalism is inherently exploitative and immoral, and can never be fundamentally fettered.

    Capitalism NEVER allows anyone BUT the capitalist class to run the system AND make ALL THE essential decisions.

    By its very nature, capitalism leads to periodic economic crises, poverty for the underclasses, racial and sexual divisions with related forms of oppression, environmental destruction, and multiple forms of war, including planet threatening world war.

    We (humanity) better figure pout how to make socialism work, because it is the only thing at this stage of human history that can save the planet.

    And Sera, good exposure of NAMI and many questions surrounding how to deal with it.

    While I do not think every blog needs to target capitalism as the ultimate enemy, far too often people (like Will Hall and others) make grand pronouncements about the “system” and the “monied elites” without ever really defining the actual class and type of system we are dealing with.

    Given the urgency of the domestic and world situation situation, overall we really DO need more and more discussion (by drawing real world links) about what is the ultimate root of modern day oppression in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • littleturtle

    You have asked me (and others) this same question in the past and your never happy with the answer.

    In today’s world those who put forward the “bio/psy/soc model” in reality act upon, and actually mean, the “bio/bio/bio model” of causation. At best, they only pay lip service to environmental factors being a factor in causing extreme forms of psychological distress.

    The Disease/Drug Based Medical Model that dominates the entire “mental health” system is rooted in “genetic theories of original sin.” They don’t want people looking at poverty, class divisions, war, trauma, racial and sexual divisions and inequality etc. within today’s capitalist society.

    There is NO scientific evidence of ANY biological markers related to what gets labeled as “mental illness.”

    In the grand scheme of things look at it this way. If we take two people and subject them to torture for hours and days at a time, and one person splits off in their mind (loses touch with reality – hears voices or has conversations with people not present etc.) after 18 hours of torture , and the other person “splits off” after 22 hours, is somehow “biology” involved in the 4 hour difference in time between the two people???

    Maybe, but who the F#%k cares?

    It is politically and morally sick for a society to spend billions of dollars looking for a “biological” answer to this question INSTEAD OF trying to find out why torture is going on in the first place, AND THEN finding a way to STOP IT ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Without a complete and total condemnation of the entire Disease/Drug Based Medical Model, we will just end up with parallel systemic approaches that does little towards dismantling the entire oppressive “mental health” system.

    “It must place psychosocial factors on equal footing with biological factors;..”

    The above quote is indicative of the fundamental problem with “half stepping” reformist approaches. Where the hell is the scientific evidence for the role of “biological factors” !!!???

    While there may be good intentions on the part of those suggesting these changes. these efforts still concede legitimacy to a totally oppressive and immoral system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I have consistently exposed the entire ruling class and their system in this country.

    However, it is VERY important to focus attention on Trump and those who support him. because he represents the most serious threat to institute some type of “fascist” rule in this country. Which would most likely include the most naked forms of racial oppression, pogroms etc. They could even become part of a set of new laws

    This would make it virtually impossible to exercise ANY type of political forms of protest and dissent. That includes, with any form of freedom of the press etc.

    To not recognize the dangerous LEAP in the objective situation with Trump’s election in this country is a serious ultra-left error.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kumininexile

    You cannot escape the fact that Trump is a racist. This is obvious in so many ways, and very much based on multiple things he has said or done (or not done).

    And ANY person supporting him in today’s world is either an OVERT racist or a COVERT racist.

    “Covert,” meaning that through both ignorance and overall lack of social and political awareness, they tolerate and/or engage in various forms of racist behavior.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This blog raises some interesting historical questions about how to assess MLK’s legacy and the lessons to be learned from the struggles he was a part of. HOWEVER, it ends up promoting more confusion by obscuring the huge “elephant in the room.”

    “Doesn’t the real solution mean addressing the roots of war, racism, and poverty in society as King asked us to do?”

    As Oldhead pointed out, there is not a single reference to the MAIN obstacle to human progress in the world today – CAPITALISM.

    We live in a CLASS based/profit based system. Will keeps making reference to the “monied elites.” Where the hell did they (the monied elites) get their money and power??? There would be NO modern day American empire without the vicious exploitation of one hundred years of slavery. AND also the on going exploitation of American and Third World workers in those countries totally dominated by U.S. imperialism.

    The U.S. Imperialist empire will NEVER be able to integrate (provide economic and social equality) to minorities and people of color.

    Nor will this system (now that it understands the value of the Medical Model to it future preservation) EVER allow psychiatry and the Disease/Drug Based “Mental Health” system to lose power as a significant form of social control.

    The profit motive corrupts every aspect of society, and it is most obvious when looking at how it pervert all scientific endeavors. Look at what it has done to help create the so-called pseudo-scientific backdrop for today’s “mental health” system.

    To Will and others: we can’t move forward and build ANY significant political movement in today’s world WITHOUT clearly identifying to the masses what they are up against.

    The “monied elites” IS the capitalist class -running a class based/profit based economic system.

    Yes, the under classes should have more resources available to them, but a “guaranteed income” is not a real solution.

    If ALL of today’s wealth was redistributed equally to every citizen in this country (with the capitalist system still in tact) it would be a VERY SHORT TIME before ALL the same class based disparities and inequalities would reassert themselves within society.

    It’s time for humanity to move beyond the capitalist system before the planet is destroyed through environmental destruction or a new imperialist world war.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • shaun f

    Your response did not really address my criticism of your past comment about obscuring class distinctions in the realm of criminal responsibility.

    And then your response states: “Richard, my point is that we simply don’t know what is going on with the brain, so we can’t cure the distress that people are coming into MH clinics want treated.”

    Do we really have to know exactly what is going on in the brain of a highly emotionally distressed person? No, we don’t. We have to find the best ways to provide loving support, and help them understand the source of their distress and oppression.

    And furthermore, I would say that we don’t have to “cure” SHIT!

    Shaun f, your language implies that somehow there is some “disease” process going on here. Your “agnosticism” and “minimizing” language obscures the fact that we DO KNOW what some of the main problems are for why people suffer extreme duress.

    Have you forgotten that we live in a society filled with injustice, trauma, discrimination, and multiple forms of violence, including poverty?

    Shaun f, you seem to be trying to travel down the middle of a road as narrow as a razor blade. This approach leads us away from finding a deeper understanding and the ultimate solutions to these problems.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • shaun f

    With your above comment you just minimized the whole oppressive nature of today’s Medical Model and let it ALL its leaders totally off the hook for their crimes and criminal negligence

    Is it REALLY that “we aren’t there yet” ???

    And your use of the word “WE,” totally obscures the class nature of our society, and lumps all the victims of the Medical Model in with the perpetrators of the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex.

    Are “WE” here at MIA and other common people in society in this “together” with the leaders of the APA, Big Pharma, and the FDA???

    Until society reaches a point (beyond a profit based system) where top CEO’s can be duly punished with penalties commensurate with their crimes, we have NO chance of dismantling this oppressive Medical Model.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    You said: “I will adamantly defend against the way you’re BASHING [my emphasis] someone for not conforming to your social values.”

    Where and how did I ever “BASH” anyone in my above comment???

    Any objective reading of my above comments to Oldhead, would view them as nothing more than “constructive criticism” between comradely activists who are against psychiatry and an oppressive capitalist/imperialist world.

    Kindredspirit, I took NO offense to your use of sarcasm in a past comment, I only disagreed with how you used it. BUT I DO take offense to your characterizing of my feedback to Oldhead as “bashing.”

    On a second reading, don’t you view your use of the word “bashing” as quite extreme in this context?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Please don’t try to stand above this kind of discussion about the need and desire of human beings (on some level) to be understood and accepted by others, by using the so-called “mature people” argument.

    At times at MIA, you (if you’re honest) just like any other person vigorously participating here, has been affected by occasional feelings of being “isolated” in certain particular hot discussions.

    However, this totally avoids my main point which is NOT fundamentally about hurting people’s “feelings” in conducting political discussion among potential “friends.”

    This is about building principled unity (over time) and grasping how we arrive at truth.

    Sometimes the very essence of your “good comments” here at MIA may NEVER have occurred unless someone took the risk to delineate their analysis in a blog, and/or comment. Their writings stimulated you to carefully evaluate the heart of their analysis and how consistent, or not, they carried forward their analysis to their final conclusions about where this all leads us.

    That stimulation I am describing here, may have caused you to think creatively BEYOND where you previously were at with your overall analysis of psychiatry, the Medical Model etc. The struggle for the truth is very much a social process and no one can claim they “always had it.” It is important to give credit where credit is due, even when people fall shy of “perfection.”

    It really does help overall dialogue (on both a political AND personal level) to acknowledge whether or not someone’s analysis is mainly, or overwhelming, a positive contribution to our growth in knowledge, AND then point out where it falls short.

    Oldhead, no one here is asking you to be the “go to guy” here. I believe your “good ideas” could go much further in the struggle against psychiatry if you improve “a few” of your methods of communication in these dialogues.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirirt

    You’re missing the essence of point my here, and your use of sarcasm with the “Mary Poppins” analogy makes it even clearer to me.

    Most people who write here at MIA are not being paid (or somehow seeking ego building recognition) for their writings. And I think most of those who are being paid, would describe it as a “labor of love” (a meaningful, and potentially world changing, investment of time and labor) in a world full of life and death struggles where powerful words may make positive difference.

    In the evolutionary and Revolutionary process of seeking a higher truth, it is helpful to point out what is correct in someone’s writings or research, BEFORE moving on to what may be incorrect and/or falling short of the truth. It helps the overall process of learning.

    For example: even Karl Marx, who provided the world with a devastating critique of capitalism and why it must be replaced by socialism and then communism, made a clear historical analysis as to how the capitalist system was actually a major ADVANCE over the feudalistic system, and how the rise of capitalism set up the material conditions for a new historical stage, by bringing the (the formerly scattered) toiling masses into socialized living and working conditions, so they would be able to collectively understand and ultimately collectively organize against their fundamental (and no longer necessary) oppression.

    And frankly, in regards to some MIA discussions, what I am talking about here is simply – BASIC HUMAN RESPECT among those people who are clearly on the same *oppressed* side of barricades at this moment in history. “Unite all who can be united!”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit and Oldhead

    You have made some very powerful points in your response to this blog.

    As for my advice to Oldhead, this relates to some longstanding discussion and disagreements we have had about how to dialogue in the comment section at MIA.

    For the most part, I find Oldhead’s comments at MIA to be some of the very best, most educational, and challenging. At times however, he undercuts the power of his overall role in the comment section by some of his methods of struggle.

    Why not give an author (or other commenter) credit for the good work they have done, and point some main areas where there is agreement, BEFORE launching into the minutiae of disagreements? This, of course, is a general comment about writing style and can’t (and shouldn’t) always be applied, BUT more often that not.

    My goal in even bringing this up is to help make Oldhead’s comments play an even more powerful role at MIA.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Thank you Zenobia Morrill for this great article.

    This is a very important and powerful indictment of the flawed scientific, philosophical, and political underpinnings of psychiatry and the entire Medical Model. The work of these researches (and this blog) should be spread far and wide as an important weapon against all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    As a secondary point, what CONCERNS ME about this article is that despite all this very deep and powerful exposure of psychiatry, there is not a single reference made to ABOLISHING this very harmful institution. Without this type of discussion, we end up “minimizing” the overall harm done by psychiatric oppression in all its forms.

    On what basis does it EVER make sense to make “recommendations” to the institution of psychiatry? Why even give them the credibility that somehow (as an institution, not as individual people) they deserve to exist in a humane world?

    If one takes the work of these researches work to ALL its ultimate conclusion (looking at the social and political role of psychiatry in today’s world), there is NO OTHER justice worthy conclusion than to *abolish* psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    It’s much better to raise a critical or important point (in this case a good one) AFTER your overall take on the blog. People put much effort into these writings to make MIA better and advance our overall struggle against the Medical Model. These writers deserve positive feedback when it is warranted.

    Marilyn

    Very good blog – contains much wisdom.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • And Steve

    With all due respect Steve , your above comment misses by a wide mark the essence of what Maradel was getting at in her comments.

    You said; “and if we get the right people making decisions without their own views being polluted by corruption, we can remove the incentives for hurting people.”

    No, No, No, it’s not most FUNDAMENTALLY about the PEOPLE in power. You could have the very BEST and most compassionate people in power, but if they are CONTAINED within a profit based capitalist system, they will either be overwhelmed or destroyed by the profit system.

    You said: “… humans being what we are, changing incentives is the key to changing how people act. If you pay people to hurt other people, you’ll find people willing to do it.”

    Yes, this is true. But we need a socialist Revolution for this to even begin to happen.

    Steve, your above comment promotes the illusion that somehow significant change can occur short of a major political/economic Revolution getting rid of a profit based system.

    We ALL need to stop promoting illusions that ‘reform” under capitalism will lead us to the “promised land.”

    In fact, I will say that when we do engaged in specific political struggles for change (and I DO think this is important), our main goal long term goal is NOT the specific immediate victory (which will most likely be temporary and in danger of being reversed). Our main goal in these particular struggles is to “prepare minds and organize forces” for ultimate showdown to completely dismantle the profit based capitalist system.

    Anything SHORT of a NEW state power, AND a fundamental transformation of the economic base, is ALL an ILLUSION.

    Happy New Year!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Maradel

    You made some very insightful points in your two comments here. The most important thing is that you linked ALL these various forms of oppression to a profit based capitalist system. Literally every aspect of this system turns people into commodities which leads to alienation and exploitation in one form or another.

    You stated pessimistically that perhaps “evolution” is our only hope. I would challenge the word “evolution.” Slow gradual change has NEVER, nor can it EVER, lead to significant System change without a political and economic REVOLUTION!

    Any partial political victories SHORT of a Revolution will ALWAYS be in danger of being reversed by an omnipotent status quo that puts profit before anything else.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • samruck2

    The difference between my comments and those of “The Cat” is as follows:

    If you go through the history of my comments and blogs, I make a great effort to explain in great depth my use of certain phrases and concepts that are anti-capitalist, and therefore denoted to be on the Left.

    I do think quite often that “The Cat” has very insightful comments about what is wrong withe the Medical Model and psychiatry. Unfortunately, in my view, he sometimes tends to undermine the credibility of his comments when he throws in what I consider to be Right Wing code words without any substantial explanation.

    Samruck2, you have a nice Holiday as well.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The cat

    The author made no mention of the “state.”

    I wish you could start thinking outside the box of Right Wing code words and catch phrases.

    The “state” as we currently know it is completely controlled by a tiny minority (of both Democrats and Republicans) who are wealthy/power hungry ruling class dinosaurs

    If a “state” was truly made up of, and run by,THE people, and NOT only people from an upper class seeking the highest rate of profit by any means necessary, AND they were now people who had no inherent reason (and would be deprived of any attempts at misusing this power), then WHY should the “state” be viewed in such negative terms?

    And if we ran a NEW society in such a way (over many many generations), eventually we could get rid of a “state” once and for all.

    The cat, “dare to dream” a little in the new year that is about to come upon us.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The current medical establishment does not know shit about how to treat “chronic pain.” In fact their current track record of so-called treatments have CAUSED an epidemic of more chronic pain.

    Now that their on going record of prolific prescriptions for high doses of opioids has become more exposed (for not working and contributing to the overdose epidemic), they are now taking some people too rapidly off their drugs with NO REPLACEMENT APPROACH for their failed course of “treatment.”

    Once a course of high doses of opioids is begun with some patients (causing dependency and an almost total lack of physical activity) it becomes almost impossible to switch course to a path without these drugs.

    There ARE alternatives to these drugs, but the patients must be carefully educated about the benefits of these alternative strategies and convinced that that more opioids will actually create OPIOID INDUCED HYPERALGESIA – which makes people MORE sensitive to pain over time.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thank you Sharna Olfman.

    There is some very important things to be learn from this blog. I don’t believe this is a call for a return to a more “primitive” world. Instead I believe it is a call to retain certain important evolutionary learned standards of culture as we move forward in a very troubled world.

    This blog is in essence a call for a political and economic Revolution which will take humanity well beyond a profit based capitalist world.

    The author states the following:

    “This contrasts significantly with the sense of self that is encouraged in Western cultures which emphasizes competition as opposed to cooperation with others, and in which nature is viewed as a commodity to be mined and managed rather than a living part of ourselves…Patriarchy, misogyny, social hierarchy, and material wealth are unfamiliar concepts.”

    There is simply NO WAY the world envisioned by this author can take place in a society where social classes and a profit system of capitalism are the dominant form of human organization.

    When the author suggests that humanity must completely transform the “human nest,” I wish she had been more upfront about what will actually be required for humanity to make this much needed worldwide transformation.

    Happy Holidays, Richard

    Report comment

  • PuppyLove

    I am sorry to hear that you had to endure such abuse from a dysfunctional and harmful therapist. I hope you have found some resolution to the issues that led you to seek counseling in the first place.

    You do sound like you have a very good grasp of the many mistakes this particular therapist made that made you feel so unsafe and unsupported. I hope you have found other social supports in your life that can help you successful move forward. Thanks for the positive feedback about that particular blog I wrote several years ago.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • The phrase “stop working” is very misleading and it undermines what is a very important posting here at MIA.

    There is still NO definitive evidence that SSRI’s “work.”

    AND when the placebo effect soon wears off and reality continues to exert itself on people’s lives (unresolved conflict with the environment), they may tend to become even MORE depressed because there was an expectation (promised by the Medical Model) that things would get better.

    AND then they may feel even WORSE and HOPELESS about themselves and their so-called “genetic defects” (implied by the “chemical imbalance” theory), thus overall intensifying depression and despair.

    This may also be an additional reason why many people end up far worse after taking SSRI’s.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • In response to Steve (moderator)

    A very well stated AND appropriate position to take as the moderator here at MIA.

    This is a perfect example where moderator restraint is the best and necessary position to take, while also clarifying the overall expectations for dialogue at MIA.

    Once a process of TOO much moderation begins, then some people will start reporting more and more comments, and expecting them to all be deleted. It then becomes a dangerous and distracting “rabbit hole” of censorship.

    I am very surprised by some of the people who are actually calling for more deletions of certain comments.

    Steve, I highly commend your overall role in this difficult process.

    This makes MIA a great place on the Web to learn and struggle through many different scientific and political concepts and positions. This process is not without some occasional pain and discomfort. But this is how we all grow, and how truth is eventually arrived at somewhere down the road.

    Have a great holiday season!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead said: ” So far be it for me to go the route of branding women who choose to get by like this as automatically embracing internalized misogyny.”

    Does that mean that one needs a vagina to really know what misogyny is?

    Prostitution in today’s world is a commodity relationship, and it is inherently oppressive.

    Prostitutes are the “victims” in these relationships and should never be criminalized for their behavior.

    And yes, in a truly revolutionary society when all commodity relationships are gradually eliminated, prostitution will be outlawed.

    Anyone who defends prostitution, doesn’t yet understand what prostitution really is, and does not understand the harm it does to women (and also to those men forced into carrying out this commodity relationship).

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Once again you avoid the point AND the self-criticism.

    And yes, as long as professional therapists exist in this world, they must abide by some ethical standards that demand that they “do no harm.”

    And I look forward to the day (and I am working toward that day) when there will be no need or reason for therapists to exist in this world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “If someone is worried about “corruption” they should never have entered the “therapeutic” arena.”

    Here you are “blaming the victim.” In this case, it is a vulnerable woman seeking help from a professional who has taken an oath to “do no harm,” and this same professional has pledged to never cross these type of boundaries as part of accepting their license to practice. This is all essential in order to create a safe place for someone to possibly get the help they need.

    You said: “We’re talking primarily about male behavior here, not “therapist” behavior; eliminating the “therapeutic” context would not solve the problem.”

    This statement ignores the fact that professionals such as therapists and doctors have a specific code of ethics and consequences for violating them. And sexual boundaries is one code that is clearly necessary, whether or not this person practices inside (or outside) the Medical Model.

    Oldhead, you are still minimizing sexual exploitation here.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I am really surprised that Oldhead and Frank would end up MINIMIZING the harm done by a therapist and/or doctor when they use their power differentials to selfishly sexually exploit a client. This should NEVER be minimized or given ANY form of tacit approval, under ANY circumstances.

    You both have called out (as have I) any, and all, forms of arrogance and power priviledges when it comes to professionals functioning in the “mental health” system. And very often you have done so in your critique of their participation here at MIA, sometimes even mistakenly treating potential friends as if they were an enemy, So, how is it that suddenly the exploitation of a woman in a counseling relationship becomes more vague and confusing when it comes to violating a very emotionally dangerous and loaded power differential?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The good in this blog:

    1) The challenging and speaking out against authority and their attempts to cover it up

    2) The recognition that silence in the face of seeing various forms of exploitation and abuses of power can be a dangerous self perpetuating form of complicity in allowing those crimes to continue.

    3) The willingness to be self-critical (and promote the important role of self-criticism in any human rights movement) about one’s complicity in remaining silent, and those times when the author took advantage of certain power differentials and put his own self interests above the possibility of harming more vulnerable people.

    The “bad”, or misguided themes , promoted in this blog:

    1) The multiple references to Jung, and those adherents that follow him, without any critical analysis of Jung and his belief system. Is it any wonder that the director of a program in a school featuring and idealizing Jungian analysis, had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a “client?” As was pointed out in another comment, Jung himself, deeply violated the power differential between himself and a client, and now one of his followers was merely following in the footsteps of his mentor.

    2) NO CLASS ANALYSIS!!!! And no analysis where psychiatry and the Medical Model fits into maintaining and enforcing a class based system.
    Will made the following statements: ” …we all have shadows, we all have blind spots, we are all in this complicity and corruption together.” “… “our side” that is also part of the problem, that we are dangerously also part of “the system.” ”

    This is very dangerous thinking. It is one thing (a very important thing) to see how our thinking and behavior has been influenced, and at times, corrupted by a very oppressive and pervasive system, and yes, we need to criticize it when it happens. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME OR EQUALLY COMPLICIT IN THIS ONGOING OPPRESSION.

    We live in a CLASS SYSTEM where a small minority has complete control of the means of production, distribution of goods and services, and they have control of various police forces and and a military to back up and maintain their power position throughout society. They set up all the rules and continue to enforce them. We should never accept responsibility for this because it only COVERS UP AND PLACES A VAIL OVER THE VERY FACT THAT WE LIVE IN A CLASS SOCIETY.

    This kind of thinking does NOT help people figure out what is really going on in our society and where people should stand up and take decisive and demonstrative action against all forms of oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To all

    I am that person, and I used “Trump” in the form of an “analogy” as to what is, and is NOT, possible to change using such activities like yoga and meditation. In order to make this point more obvious, I used the most extreme person in contemporary life, so people would have NO doubt regarding my meaning. This a commonly used writing technique.

    Given what is currently going on in this country and the world, AND just how serious and dangerous these conditions are, it is a moral imperative to find any, and all, opportunities to make these kind of analogies.

    HOWEVER, these kind of political insertions in relatively unrelated topics should not be “forced,” or somehow mechanically applied, otherwise they will not succeed with their overall intention.

    And regarding anyone who would “protest” my above use of this analogy, it is unclear if this is a criticism of my writing methodology OR of my political outlook? The way the criticism was made seems more like the latter, and that does tell me something about the author.

    I understand that a discussion of this particular question cannot be resolved here at this time. But I hope that people do not adopt an “all political analogies” are off based and can never be used in thread discussions.

    We do NOT want to end up just watching the “Cabaret” while the world falls apart around us.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “They can also help people transcend their programming and see beyond their egos.”

    Here you are implying (if not directly saying) that somehow yoga and meditation involvement, BY THEMSELVES, can transform someone’s ideology and behavior in a more humane direction.

    This is utter nonsense, and there is no proof to back up this over exaggeration of their benefits.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “Yes, but they also have benefits that go far beyond that, so I think that’s a bit simplistic and limited. They can also help people transcend their programming and see beyond their egos.”

    By themselves, yoga and meditation WILL NOT and CANNOT teach people who their “friends” and “enemies” are in the real world, and/or what are the institutions and human forms of exploitation that need to be eliminated from the world.

    To think otherwise is to drink someone else’s “Kool Aid.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Monica

    Great blog with many important insights as usual.

    I will add this point. My wife is now a yoga instructor in her second career path. I recently picked up a copy of her Yoga Journal magazine and read an article about how the U.S. military is starting to embrace some of the “benefits” of yoga in carrying out its mission.

    And any truthful historian can seriously question the overall oppressive and exploitative nature of these imperialistic “missions” that have been carried out by the U.S. military.

    Also in the past I have read articles about how some parts of the U.S. military (pilots and snipers) use meditation to enhance their ability to carry out their so-called missions.

    Many proponents of yoga and meditation promote these activities as some type of religion or liberating activity that BY THEMSELVES will lead individuals to some higher level of consciousness and/or morality.

    This approach is utter nonsense and ignores the importance of a person’s overall ideological and moral stance in the world AND the important related sum total of their experiences in the world.

    Both meditation and yoga have an important place in the world in helping people cope with a very oppressive status quo that includes the enormous harm done by psychiatry and the Medical Model.

    But, as you have pointed out Monica, they also have their limitations, and must be applied carefully taking into consideration each person’s unique experience in the world. When making use of these practices you cannot ignore individual experience, political ideology and knowledge, AND what is deep inside a person’s heart.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    You’ve made many good points in response to this blog. I ,also, appreciate Peter Breggin’s many contributions to the struggle against psychiatric oppression.

    And I would add this comment about Breggin’s positive mention of the Old Testament of the Bible and its so-called expressions of “love”:

    While the Old Testament may make a few minor references about “love,” it is overwhelming filled with (and advocating for) some of the worst forms of oppression and treatment of human beings by other human beings. And the Almighty God running the whole show in the Old Testament, perpetrates (and advocates for) some of the very worst crimes of humanity.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • We all must remember that psychiatry is not going anywhere soon despite these types of powerful exposures of their scientific nonsense and related crimes against the people.

    My making such a statement is NOT to underestimate the value of such exposures (like that of Philip Hickey) as an organizing tool. This kind of work is critical educational work for building an important human rights movement.

    An underlying theme (though not directly identified as such) in Philip’s writing is an overall indictment of the role of profit and power within the workings of the capitalist system. The profit motive drives Big Pharma’s push to sell drugs by any means necessary, and encourages and sustains the guild interests of psychiatry.

    AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, psychiatry and their entire disease/drug based paradigm of so-called “treatment,” has now become a vitally important means of social control, maintaining order within the empire.

    They continue to drug the more potentially volatile sections of society and shift people’s attention away from inherent social problems within their System, and refocus people’s attention on so-called personal/genetic “flaws” in human nature.

    So ALL our anti-psychiatry work must continue to find the ways to link psychiatry’s present existence AND future (and its ultimate demise) to the historic end of capitalism as a form planet wide social organization.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    Brilliant! Perhaps your best blog ever. You should definitely publish an entire book with all of your similar writings, and this particular blog should be centrally featured in that book.

    This blog is not just a call for Allen Francis to abandon and condemn psychiatry for its crimes and its illegitimacy as a medical specialty, but a call to ALL so-called “critical psychiatry” doctors, and other similar minded critics, to finally make the necessary leap to “all the way” anti-psychiatry.

    Carry on, Philip. Your writings are a beautiful and inspiring weapon in the struggle for human emancipation from all forms of oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Abortion is NOT murder, and to insist on such a position is to deny one half of humanity one of their most fundamental human rights.

    Abortion must be defended as an essential right of a woman to control her body and reproductive rights.

    Nobody can seriously say they are a feminist OR support women’s equality if they do not unequivocally support a women’s right to abortion.

    Anyone who fails to support a woman’s right to abortion ALSO fails to fully understand psychiatric oppression and all its connections to other human rights struggles.

    It is wrong of Dragon Slayer to misquote the content of Oldhead’s above comment, because I believe he also fully supports a women’s right to abortion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Abortion is the most fundamental right of a woman to control her body and reproductive rights.

    Nobody can seriously say they are a feminist OR support women’s equality if they do not unequivocally support a women’s right to abortion.

    Dragon Slayer, once again you reveal your inability to fully understand psychiatric oppression and all its connections to other human rights struggles.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob

    I think there needs to be some organized way for people to express their opposition to this attack on Gotzsche and our entire movement.

    Is there an online petition or some effort to publish a large add (denouncing his removal from Cochrane) in some major paper or publication that is signed by professionals and survivors etc.?

    If so, I would definitely contribute some money and my signature for this to happen.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob and All

    Rosalee said:
    “Thank you Robert for this gripping report about Peter Gotzsche and the injustices this man endured for being forthright and honest. I so appreciate your website, books and all your incredible work in helping so many. It is very empowering to those who have been downtrodden and harmed by psychiatry.”

    I SECOND this insightful summary and praise for the work and activism of Robert Whitaker and Peter Gotzsche, AND all the others who are exposing and challenging the oppressive nature of the Disease/Drug Based Medical Model.

    We should NOT be demoralized OR disheartened by the fact that the “powers that be” are striking back at those who have wounded the “beast.” The ruling class, and those institutions like psychiatry that prop up and help maintain this world wide system of exploitation, are acting exactly as we should expect them to.

    Modern psychiatry (as an institution of social control) is now SO deeply embedded within the fabric of the profit based/capitalist system, that both of their future on this planet has now become INSEPARABLY bound.

    For this reason (as we move forward in our work to end all forms of psychiatric abuse), we must continually find ways to link up with other human rights struggles AND (at the same time) expose the profit based/capitalist system as THE major impediment to human progress on this planet.

    All this means is that we have a long and complicated road ahead. “Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!”

    Carry on, Richard

    Report comment

  • All

    The reason I have not joined in this discussion at this time is because there is NO WAY I can do it the justice it needs and deserves in a comment section. I am planning, very soon, to write a blog with the rough title, ” Moving Beyond Identity politics On the Road to Ending Psychiatric Abuse.”

    I take some responsibility for how this discussion has progressed in a negative direction up to this point. Even with all my experience in political movements, I have underestimated how divisive Identity Politics can be in certain political struggles, AND why it must be addressed in a comprehensive and deep going way.

    Identity Politics can mean many things to many people (as some people here have attempted to define it), and some of these understandings can be very positive in certain historical contexts. BUT we can also see how divisive Identity Politics can become when it is used as club to beat down contending political viewpoints, especially those strongly advocating for a class analysis.

    We have ALL been negatively affected by certain counter currents in the evolution of Identity Politics, and it has been reflected in this discussion, and other past discussions at MIA.

    Oldhead said: ” If my beliefs are dissed using a term that is undefined…”

    My intent in these discussions has never been to “diss” (as in disrespect) people’s viewpoints. Disagreeing with, and challenging other’s viewpoints is NOT “dissing” people. I hope that Oldhead and LavenderSage, in particular, will be open to a future, in depth discussion of this important topic based on a much deeper presentation.

    Please be patient and give me a chance to do this topic the justice it deserves and wait a short while until I can complete and publish a new blog at MIA. It is a very complicated and controversial subject, so I need to dig deep and seek a clarity that can be unifying as it attempts to broaden our overall analysis of how to move forward with important human rights struggles.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • LavenderSage, Steve and others,

    I am very surprised that so few people have heard about this before, or understand how it manifests itself today. An aspect of *Identity Politics* did become an issue, especially between the the two wings in the Democratic Party supporting Hilary C. and Bernie S., though it has bigger and broader applications.

    If you click on my name in these comments you will see in numerous PAST comments where I discuss various aspects of *Identity Politics,* and within those comments is a partial definition that applies to some of these discussions.

    If you google *Identity Politics,* and especially a “critical analysis of Identity Politics,” you will see many historical analyses of how *Identity Politics* has developed over the years and what role it plays today.

    Because of the seriousness of this discussion (and how controversial it can become) I will defer my longer response to a future time. This discussion deserves a careful and well thought out presentation here at MIA, and unfortunately I do not currently have the time to give it the level of seriousness it deserves.

    I regret having to respond this way to your questions at this time, but I do promise to address this in the very near future, and I hope you will join in and participate in the discussion at that time

    Please, in the meantime do some of your own research on this topic, so that when I do write something here at MIA you can participate from the highest level of understanding.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • To ALL,

    I find it interesting and sad that very few people on the MIA website EVER want to discuss *Identity Politics,* especially to offer any CRITICISM of this largely negative trend in current political movements. I believe this is, by itself, indicative of the very real kind of fear that this trend has created, and how it stifles very important and necessary political discussion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    I am NOT saying that the fall of capitalism automatically leads to the death of psychiatry. Activists such as ourselves would have much work to do to make sure that definitely happens.

    I AM saying that I don’t believe we can fully end psychiatry and the whole oppressive Medical Model without FIRST clearing away the profit based capitalist system. I don’t think we have to agree completely on this latter point to move forward in some kind of political unity.

    I am not sure what you are referring to when you use the “authoritarian” when describing my political position? Is that a general comment about some problems you have with Marxism? Leninism? Moaism? type positions, or something else? And , of course, we do not need to have full unity on exactly what type of society we need to build in the future in order to move forward on the more immediate issues.

    And I was not clear on the reference to #639?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie, Steve, Oldhead, Frank, and others,

    I don’t believe these comments have gotten to the heart of some of the political differences here. Let me attempt to clarify the differences as I see them.

    I have NEVER said that we shouldn’t ever work with people on the Right side of the political spectrum. This is not up for debate here. Steve, and others, did you read this comment I recently made? https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/09/indigenous-scholarship-antipsychiatry-battle/#comment-140852

    What I have been strongly advocating for is that committed LEFT oriented anti-psychiatry activists (those individuals who are clearly and strongly anti-capitalist) grasp the importance of forming an ADVANCED LEFT LEANING anti-psychiatry organization.

    This political imperative flows out of understanding the crucial role that other such ADVANCED human rights type political organizations have played throughout the last 100 years of our history. And especially understanding the principle of how the ADVANCED political position tends to act as a catalyst pushing to the LEFT those people NOT YET able to fully understand the oppressive role of psychiatry and/or its connections to the capitalist system

    Other people with less developed,or ADVANCED (not yet anti-capitalist) political perspectives, will certainly start ALL kinds of other organizations with various political perspectives, and some will play a positive role in the long term development of the struggle. Yes, some of them should be both supported and worked with as the struggle develops. This may, at times, mean we have political alliances with activists who are currently RIGHT leaning. BUT, the existence of ADVANCED organizations are absolutely critical in pushing forward the entire political process.

    WHO is going to take the lead in launching such ADVANCED organizations, if it is NOT people such as ourselves who clearly understand that capitalism (as a political and economic system) is THE major impediment to the advance of human progress on the planet?

    Even it it were somehow possible to rid society of psychiatry under capitalism (which you know I strongly believe it is NOW impossible for that to happen) the world would still be a horribly oppressive place for hundreds of millions of people. It would be incredibly narrow minded AND selfish of those people (such as ourselves) who actually grasp the oppressive role of capitalism in the world today, to NOT view the anti-psychiatry human rights struggle as having TWO important goals.

    1) to advance the day to day struggle against psychiatry by exposing its thoroughly oppressive role in society and organizing material resistance with various key forms of mass struggle.

    2) AND most importantly, draw all the very real connections between the institutional role of psychiatry in society to the profit based capitalist system. By doing this, we become a part of all the OTHER human rights struggles that are educating the masses of people, through all their struggles, that AS A SOCIETY, we need to move BEYOND capitalism BEFORE it destroys the planet through environmental destruction and/or imperialist war.

    AND NO, various CONSOLIDATED Right Wing forces should NOT be worked with in such an ADVANCED organization, And, nor would they especially want to join anyway, if we CLEARLY draw the the very REAL connections between psychiatry and the profit based capitalist system. Again, there may be some opportunities to create brief political alliances with other less radical forces as things develop.

    Oldhead, it is senseless for you to keep asking me for what Left organization takes a great position on psychiatry. We ALL know that they have lousy positions , and/or have never really developed one. The KEY questions here is how do WE advance everyone’s understanding (including the legitimate LEFT and/or Marxist type organizations) of the oppressive role of psychiatry AND the need to abolish it?

    I believe the answer to this important question is to strongly consider the importance of forming an ADVANCED LEFT LEANING anti-psychiatry organization for the TWO purposes I advocated for above.

    And Oldhead, I have stated several time that I will be writing something more involved about the overall negative role of *Identity Politics* in today’s political movements. But I have CLEARLY said enough (in multiple comments) about *Identity Politics* for you to understand why it represents a step backwards when proposing a path forward in forming an ADVANCED anti-psychiatry human rights organization.

    And Oldhead, you have clearly waffled on this question. You had no problem , not too long ago, in building such an organization with non-survivor anti-psychiatry activists. Now suddenly you are advocating for a survivor ONLY organization, with NO political summation that clearly JUSTIFIES why this should be the current political imperative.

    I will clearly say, that it is a major step BACKWARD in this political era, for a veteran anti-capitalist/ Marxist oriented activist to be advocating for an “Identity” based radical political organization. This is especially true when you have presented NO political analysis as to why this is even necessary and/or how it will advance the struggle. Here is an example where *Identity Politics,* and similar type positions, are playing a negative role.

    And I agree with Bonnie, that in ALL these questions we should be thinking globally when developing our analysis and political strategies.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    You said:

    “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 agree with this statement COMPLETELY.

    I am strongly advocating that in order to build a powerful anti-psychiatry movement against ALL forms of psychiatric abuse:

    1) We need a strong set of (Left leaning) principles that exposes and condemns psychiatry’s oppressive role in the world today, INCLUDING drawing clear connections between psychiatry’s meteoric growth over the past 40 years and the profit based capitalist system. A system that now also clearly relies on psychiatry for its important social role of controlling and anesthetizing vulnerable and potentially rebellious sections of the population.

    2) We should welcome all survivors, FAMILY MEMBERS of survivors, AND non survivors (including professionals) who can agree with the organization’s principles. Currently, professionals would only represent a tiny minority in such an organization. We should advocate for, and promote, survivor leadership in the organization.

    At this juncture in history, to promote a “survivor only” anti-psychiatry organization, represents a form of *Identity Politics,* AND limits our potential growth in numbers and strength.

    AND if “Right leaning” individuals are attractive to this organization’s “all the way” anti-psychiatry principles and can abide by the organization’s code of ethics, BY ALL MEANS, they should be welcomed.

    This would provide an excellent opportunity for all members to politically struggle over ALL the important questions of the day, while focusing on the target of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I’ve never lectured anyone. I have only engaged in important political and strategic discussions about how to advance an important human rights struggle. I have been upfront and honest with my views and tried to show in depth how I’ve come to those views.

    These type of discussions have taken place for several years here at MIA and you have been an active participant who NEVER hesitated in dissecting and criticizing other people’s positions when you thought they were wrong or misleading.

    Now suddenly these topics are off limits and I, supposedly, “have no right to speak’ when your positions on some of these issues are somehow questioned or challenged.

    So much for the process of dialogue and debate and “criticism/self criticism.” This defensiveness and double standard will not advance any strategic discussions for building an anti-psychiatry movement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    After all this extensive dialogue regarding some of your tendencies to promote *Identity Politics* and attempt to dilute and anti-psychiatry analysis by attempting to reconcile “Left” and “Right” Wing political positions, you CONTINUE to avoid responding to the essence of my position on these questions. I have never ONCE seen you offer anything close to a self-criticism.

    Here I will paste and copy a comment I made in a previous blog which you also NEVER responded to, and is very pertinent to this discussion about creating an anti-psychiatry organization.

    [“Oldhead

    Why would such an organization have to be composed ONLY of survivors?

    Why in this stage of political movements in this country can’t we move beyond a form of “Identity Politics” which implies that only survivors can fully understand psychiatric oppression and be able to strongly unite together with a clear anti-psychiatry basis of unity.

    Such a “united” organization of ALL people opposed to psychiatry, psychiatric oppression, and the Medical Model, would clearly be led by survivors in both numbers and promotion of leadership. This would especially be true if this was made an important organizing principle right from the start of such an organization.

    Yes, we must be aware of the past contradictions with “professionals” (related to power differential and credentials etc.) that occurred in past organizing efforts. And yes, we should address these potential problems right from the beginning.

    BUT why make such a principle out of these differences (by organizing around “identity”) that it prevents us from uniting on higher levels of unity and strength through both numbers and connections to the “mental health” system?

    Where is the evidence today that separating people off as “survivor,” “professional,” and others , including leaving out FAMILY MEMBERS harmed by the Medical Model, is somehow necessary for political organizing in this historical period?

    Obviously, from my questions you can assume that I believe this would represent a step backwards today to approach anti-psychiatry organizing from this type of “separation” principle.

    Richard”]

    Report comment

  • Alex

    Thanks for your comment.

    You are right in suggesting that the wisdom in COMBINING direct experience with both theoretical capability AND the skill and and ability to articulate all that higher understanding with deep human emotion is, indeed, a powerful force in the world for understanding and change.

    The voices of oppressed people who are able to both deeply understand and express to others their experience in a way that truly touches the mind and hearts of others, can often make them the very best spokespeople for any movement. I totally support the importance of bringing forward and promoting “survivor” leadership in the movement against psychiatric oppression. This has always been my position at MIA.

    My comments in this blog comment section have been long and extensive, raising many important points about how to understand and advance the struggle against psychiatric oppression. This includes finding a way to create advanced political organizations that can provide some leadership in maximizing the forward march of our movement.

    I have taken on two important counter trends that can be divisive and hold back progress in political movements: 1) Is the negative role of *Identity Politics* and 2) Is the importance of not diluting our politics by definitely having a Left orientation that clearly makes the connection between psychiatric oppression and a class based capitalist system.

    It is unclear to me if your above comment is meant to criticize ALL that I been struggling for and against in this discussion. OR are you merely articulating and emphasizing the intrinsic value of direct experience in coming to know truth?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    I am glad we agree on that. We ALL have a lot of work to do. And I do think getting clarity on some of these questions is very important for moving forward.

    I hope Bonnie doesn’t think we are hijacking her blog in a bad direction. I would hope that Bonnie sees some value in these types of strategic discussions and would also put forth some of her views as well.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Dragon Slayer

    Just to clarify here, I DO most definitely want to see an end to capitalism; the sooner the better. I am just not saying that needs to be the basis of unity for an anti-psychiatry organization.

    An anti-psychiatry organization can be, and should be, “Left leaning” (that is, clearly identify the very real connection between psychiatry and the profit based capitalism in today’s world).

    And as to your second paragraph above where you discuss “freedom” totally in the abstract – you still haven’t answered what so-called human rights struggles you actually support AND those you oppose.

    And don’t forget, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution made slavery legal and called Black people 3/5ths of a human.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Feminism is both a political construct and a human rights political movement. You do NOT have to have a vagina or identify as a women to understand what it is or take a position on it.

    Sometime in the near future I plan to go more deeply into what is *Identity Politics* and how it manifests itself and can be divisive in current political movements.

    But for now we can learn as we go. There are basically two ways we learn about how the world works and determine what is truth. There is DIRECT experience and there is learning through INDIRECT experience (that is through theory and the experience of others).

    Oldhead, in these discussions you have consistently overemphasized, and also made a PRINCIPLE out of DIRECT experience as being the only form of learning that REALLY MATTERS. This is flat out WRONG and a clear example of *Identity Politics.*

    You do not have to fall off a latter to understand the principles of gravity.

    You do NOT have to have gone to Vietnam to understand FULLY that the Vietnam war was wrong , AND to organize vehement resistance against that war.

    There are Caucasian historians who deeply understand slavery and racism and have written definitive books on the subject.

    And there are men and non psychiatric survivors who deeply understand the nature of women’s oppression and psychiatric oppression. They have gathered this knowledge through multiple forms of indirect experience, including observation regarding the world around them, reading, AND perhaps hearing in great detail the DIRECT experience of clients, friends and family members who have been directly harmed and/or oppressed by this system.

    Of course the DIRECT experience of those people who identify as women and psychiatric survivors is EXTREMELY important to evaluate and consider BEFORE speaking or taking up activities involving these movements.

    BUT the mere fact of someone’s “identity” as a member of an oppressed group does NOT make them right or preclude us from disagreeing with them. Or perhaps even having a MORE CORRECT evaluation of this form of oppression, and also helping to develop the best strategies for ending their form of oppression.

    To use some extreme examples to make my point, no one of ANY “identity” should hesitate to criticize Kitty Dukasis or Kellyanne Conway or Ivanka Trump. AND I will say, with great confidence, that Kellyanne Conway and Ivanka Trump ARE NOT feminists, no matter how much they WANT to label themselves that way.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    Yes, it would be inevitable AND a GOOD thing if people coming from the Right are somehow more organized in opposition to psychiatry and the Medical Mode.

    I am just strongly advocating for a more ADVANCED type organization that clearly makes the links between psychiatry and the profit based class system of capitalism.

    It is my belief (and I believe history bears this out) that such a Left leaning anti-psychiatry organization could potentially have a MUCH MORE powerful impact on advancing our cause over the long haul.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “Would you also declare that a “conservative” woman could never be a 100% feminist?”

    I would answer, ABSOLUTELY!!! – a thousand times over.

    Most “conservatives” (especially hardcore conservatives) do NOT support a women’s right to control her own body and reproductive rights – that is, the guaranteed right to have an abortion.

    ONE CANNOT EVEN BE IN THE DISCUSSION OF CALLING THEMSELVES A “FEMINIST,” UNLESS AND UNTIL, THEY SUPPORT A WOMEN’S RIGHT TO ABORTION – ON DEMAND AND WITHOUT APOLOGY!

    And I would also say (as I would with anti-psychiatry activists) that one MUST develop a clear class analysis of society and understand the connections of a class based capitalist society to the preservation of women’s oppression AND all other forms of inequality in order to qualify as 100% feminist.

    Once again, Oldhead, women’s oppression (like psychiatric oppression) DOES NOT exist in a BUBBLE. We must understand all its historical origins, and those forces in society that have benefited from and promoted women’s oppression over the centuries.

    And NO, there could NEVER be an advanced organization fighting against women’s oppression that diluted its politics to accommodate
    Right Wing evangelical forces with deeply CONSOLIDATED Right Wing belief systems. What radical women activists would want to join such an organization?

    Oldhead, here is another example where you place someone’s “identity” above a class analysis, and more recently you have done the same with “survivors.” And NO, you can’t bastardize a class analysis by making up some analysis that women and survivors are really some “quasi class,” in order to justify focusing on “identity” above a genuine class analysis.

    It is far more understandable (and defenseable) when other, less politically experienced, people begin to organize themselves around their “identity” as an oppressed section of people.

    Yes, many of these types of organizations have played a positive role in the history of human rights struggles. Unfortunately, many ended up drifting into reformism and co-optation by the System. However, today we are NOW in a different historical period – we need to move BEYOND “identity” where ever we can. And YOU, of all people should know this to be true.

    Oldhead you have promoted yourself as an anti-capitalist/pro-socialist political activist. You have consistently argued for a class analysis in your comments here at MIA. And now, suddenly you want to abandon such an analysis, and want to reconcile “Left” and Right” in some anti-psychiatry human rights organization.

    You have compromised your politics and class analysis NOT with some people who sort of just “lean” to the *Right*, BUT with individuals who have a CONSOLIDATED Right Wing perspective on almost every major political issue of contention in today’s world.

    This is an untenable position (of *Identity Politics*), and a surefire way to sabotage any efforts to build the anti-psychiatry struggle. Do you really believe that advanced anti-psychiatry activists would want to join an organization that allowed (by diluting its basic principles) hardcore CONSOLIDATED Right Wing people to feel welcome?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Dragon Slayer

    You said: “But I agree with you Frank that it is completely unnecessary to tie antipsychiatry to the overthrow of the capitalistic system.”

    These are YOUR words not mine, and part of your on going mischaracterization of my views on these questions.

    To say that an anti-psychiatry organization should be “Left leaning,” that is, make the real connections between psychiatry and capitalism, IS NOT calling for the “overthrow of capitalism.”

    Dragon Slayer, you said: “I’m not opposed to creating alliances with other people beset by oppression.”

    It is funny that over the past several years at MIA when anyone was talking about key human rights struggles like “Black Lives Matter” and women’s right to control their bodies and reproductive rights etc.etc, you always seemed to belittle and minimize these struggles AND those that would advocate for them.

    Exactly what human rights struggles are you now supporting?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve and others

    Let me clarify my position on many of these questions. There will be many groups and organizations and even webzines (as there are already a few like MIA) that are (or will become) either very critical of psychiatry, and possibly some that emerge calling for the outright abolishment of psychiatry. These many groups may include some people with mixed political perspectives varying from the Left to Right on the political spectrum. Some of these groupings may have a small positive effect on the growth of the movement against psychiatric oppression.

    However, what is absolutely essential in any growing human rights movement such as anti-psychiatry, is the need for an ADVANCED political organization (to STAND OUT from all the others) that concentrates some of best and most dedicated ideological and political thinkers, who can develop a radical program for change and are also capable of organizing direct action type resistance against all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Any serious examination of political history in the last 100 years bears out the importance of such ADVANCED radical organizations. During this historical period those organizations that had a clear Left orientation (that is, on some level critical of capitalism) were the ones who had the MOST dynamic impact pushing forward these major struggles and movements.

    Many of these groups were actually led by socialist or communist type activists. The actual program and basis of unity of these organizations (while vaguely anti-capitalist) WAS NOT based on agreement with socialism or communism as a future goal. Although many activists in these organizations eventually grew to believe that socialism would be a better alternative than capitalism, as their understanding of economics and politics developed over time.

    Organizations WITHOUT such a Left orientation very quickly and easily morphed into reformism and some form of co-optation which gutted their politics and/or they ended up selling out the very movement that gave rise to their existence. Parts of the “Peer” and “Alternative” movement in today’s “mental health” system might be an analogous example to what happen back in the 60’s.

    Unfortunately, even many of the far Left organizations eventually suffered a similar fate, although some were outright destroyed by government agents and other more serious attacks by the System.

    Many people reading and writing on the MIA website may end up starting or joining some sort of organization opposed to psychiatric oppression. My big question and concern here is: WHO will be starting the VITALLY NECESSARY AND NEEDED ADVANCED ANTI-PSYCHIATRY ORGANIZATION? Such an organization DOES NOT and SHOULD NOT require a pro socialist perspective for membership, but it must have a LEFT leaning program and compass that, at the very least, identifies the very real connections between psychiatry and modern capitalism.

    It is unfortunate that some activists writing here at MIA who are definitely anti-capitalist AND pro socialist want to abandon these politics when it comes to forming an anti-psychiatry organization. They know that even a world WITHOUT psychiatry (which is really impossible under capitalism) would still be a horrible nightmare for millions of people around the world. They know that the capitalist system is destroying the planet and could start a nuclear type Imperialist war at any moment. A war that would kill millions , if not, outright destroy the entire planet.

    For those who truly understand how dangerous the planet is at this moment because of capitalist/Imperialist type competition, it is very narrow AND selfish to focus SOLELY on anti-psychiatry actions WITHOUT making all the connections to capitalism. What kind of a world are we trying to build here with ANY of our so-called political activism?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said:

    “Dragon Slayer’s comments are his own. To the extent that they truly support an anti-psychiatry position without going off into “left field” I will support them.”

    Of course DS’s views are his own, and unfortunately his views seem to be solidly stuck in “Right Field” at this time, and NOT “Left Field.” This is why he seems to criticize or attack most human rights struggles, especially those that link various forms of oppression to a class based capitalist system. Why do you continue to “enable” his politics by somehow promoting the view that he is “100% anti-psychiatry?”

    Once again Oldhead, you totally avoided responding to the content of my above comment.

    You have NOT responded to my criticism as to how you are tending to place psychiatry in a “bubble.”

    You have never responded to my above link (https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/09/how-doctors-became-drug-dealers/#comment-140258) to a deeper analysis as to how a strongly entrenched “conservative” outlook today is incompatible with a truly ALL THE WAY anti-psychiatry political position.

    Of course there are many shortcoming in how Left Wing activists today fail to understand the oppressive role of psychiatry and the Medical Model, BUT the way to overcome these shortcomings IS NOT to attempt to unite “Left” and “Right” anti-psychiatrist activists in some anti-psychiatry organization by watering down our political analysis.

    One of the solutions to this problem (the ignorance of the Left) is to actively link modern day capitalism to the evolution, function, and current role of psychiatry and the Medical Model in today’s world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “That’s about the most ridiculous statement I’ve heard this week, right up there with Richard’s statement that “conservatives” can never be 100% anti-psychiatry.”

    I stand by my comment that “conservatives” by definition cannot be 100% anti-psychiatry.

    Oldhead, you are still throwing out negative labels against my comment in another blog, BUT you have NEVER provided a single word or argument to refute my position. I hope other readers will read my comment referenced below and decide for themselves.

    https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/09/how-doctors-became-drug-dealers/#comment-140258

    Psychiatry DOES NOT exist in a bubble. I applaud Bonnie’s linking of other human rights struggles to the movement against psychiatry.

    Oldhead, very much related to your wrong position that “conservatives” CAN BE 100% anti-psychiatry, is your wrong position that an advanced political organization building anti-psychiatry struggle should NOT have a “Left” orientation, that is, contain language linking psychiatry to the capitalist system.

    Dragon Slayer was quoted above saying: “In brief, Burstow’s brand of antipsychiatric social justice utopianism isn’t just untenable, it’s a boon to psychiatry itself.”

    Just looking at Dragon Slayer’s positions on other major human rights struggles is proof enough as to why we SHOULD NOT be launching anti-psychiatry human rights organizations that somehow attempt to unite “Left” and Right” political activists by “diluting” and “watering down” our political analysis.

    The struggle against psychiatry is very much linked to other human rights struggles, AND is very much linked to the struggle against a class based capitalist system.

    The way to move people who currently have “Right Wing” views towards the “Left” is to tell people the truth about what is going on in the world and the various connections of ALL forms of oppression to a class based profit system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You have thrown out words such as “wrong” “divisive” “embarrassing” “dogmatism,” but provided absolutely NO ANALYSIS to my last two comments in this comment section.

    Psychiatry is NOT an ABSTRACTION!. It does not live in a bubble isolated from the world that surrounds it. Psychiatry has a history, an evolution, and certain important factors in the world that have nurtured and accelerated it growth in the world.

    “Conservatives” (due to their political biases and blind spots) do NOT fully understand all these factors that give psychiatry and the Medical Model its sustenance and ability to grow and expand in its influence in society.

    If someone cannot fully understand or dissect the social, economic, and political environment that gives psychiatry its reason to exist, then they will be INCAPABLE (unless they rid themselves of their biases and blind spots) of understanding how psychiatry can be removed from that environment.

    Oldhead, where is there any critical analysis in the above comment?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To All

    DS asks: ” …is it possible for a person to be 100% antipsychiatry and also a genuine conservative?”

    I would answer emphatically NO!!!

    To be a 100% anti-psychiatry in today’s world you must understand psychiatry in all its origins, social and political manifestations (especially as a vital institution of social control), political and economic connections in society etc., AND THEN MOST IMPORTANTLY, based on this analysis, be able to chart a course towards what it will require to ultimately ABOLISH this institution from our future society.

    A “conservative” by definition in today’s world is most definitely a supporter of a class based capitalist system. This means overtly (or covertly through bias and ignorance) defending and supporting all the inequalities of class, race. sex etc. etc.

    A “conservative,” because of their biased and limited understanding of class based oppression, CANNOT understand how psychiatry (with its executive powers to drug and incarcerate people) is used as a vital institution in maintaining social control of the more potentially volatile (rebellious) sections of society, such as minorities, women, prisoners, and other system outliers.

    A “conservative,” because of their political blind spots, CANNOT understand the role that the capitalist profit motive plays/has played over the past 40 years in accelerating the growth of psychiatry in collusion with Big Pharma.

    NOR do “conservatives” understand (or have a problem with) the excessively high rate of profit that the pharmaceutical industry has accumulated via the sale and promotion of psychiatric drugs and psychiatric labeling, AND how this situates the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial Complex as an essential cog in the entire U.S. economy.

    Also, “conservatives” DO NOT understand how the the future of psychiatry as an institution (because of its social role and economic importance) is now inseparably bound to the future preservation of the capitalist/imperialist system.

    And “conservatives” either overtly support the current political trend towards fascism in this country, OR they covertly “enable” this trend (as do Liberals) because of their political biases and blind spots about the oppressive nature of a class based capitalist system.

    AND FINALLY, “conservatives” (and also Liberals) who do not understand the full connections of psychiatry to the capitalist system, have NO CLUE as to what kind of radical political organizing will be necessary (in the real world) to actually have a legitimate chance to ultimately abolish psychiatry from human society.

    Therefore, it is very clear that “conservatives” who hold onto and retain all their political biases and blind spots, DO NOT EVEN COME CLOSE to being 100% anti-psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • shaun f

    Yes, you are correct that some regulation fought for against ruling class interests has helped protect the environment and people to a small degree..

    BUT, in the long run you CANNOT regulate capitalism and somehow make it work for the majority of the people. Capitalism must be eliminated as a barrier to human progress, or it will destroy the planet through Imperialist war or by destroying the environment.

    Therefore, in the long run “regulation” IS a SHAM.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Chris

    I appreciate your analysis and the humor you are using to make those points.

    HOWVER, I would completely avoid ever using the phrase “fake news” in the title. Of course not all the news is true and it definitely is slanted in the direction of defending the status quo and vilifying those who who promote significant rebellion against the system.

    But the term “fake news” has become the code words for a rising fascist narrative in this country supporting so-called “alternative facts’ and an “alternative reality.”

    When criticizing the media (which does need to happen) we should use terms like “wrong” “biased” “slanted” “distorted” etc., but NEVER use the fascist code words, “fake news.”

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: ““Left” and “right” are abstractions. I’m concerned with PEOPLE. No matter what our political philosophies, there are issues that we share and can organize around.”

    How can you ever say that: ““Left” and “right” are abstractions…”

    The “Right” is the current status quo. The “Right” is the class in power TODAY. The “Right” IS the capitalist system, with ALL the horrors that go with it.

    Tell all the people in the world today that are currently harmed by the status quo of capitalism. that they are suffering from an “ABSTRACTION.”

    The “Left” are all those people in the world organizing legitimate (not Liberal reformist) opposition to capitalist oppression, and comprise many of the important human rights struggles around the world.

    Many of these people are putting their lives on the line everyday; some are dying in the course of the struggle. Tell all these people that are really some sort of “ABSTRACTION.”

    Oldhead, when you say “I’m concerned with PEOPLE…” are you implying that somehow I’m not concerned with people when I put forward my political perspective?

    And when you say “No matter what our political philosophies, there are issues that we share and can organize around.” Does that mean advanced political activists should work with ANYBODY? Do I need to spell out who “ANYBODY” could be? You can’t really be saying this with any careful thought.

    And when you say “… there are issues that we share and can organize around.” I would say “organize” for what purpose, and exactly what kind of world are we trying to create here?

    Psychiatry is NOT an ABSTRACTION. It is very much an important cog in a specific type of system, in a specific historical era.

    The struggle against psychiatry and the Medical Model is an important human rights struggle in the world today. It is currently in desperate need of some type of advanced political organization to lead the struggle both ideologically and politically, which eventually includes organized direct actions.

    No advanced political organization attempting to lead an important human rights struggle in this era can EVER reconcile the “Left” with the “Right.” What kind of world are we trying to create here?

    You said: ” Excluding those with less-than-perfect analyses is not a wise method of movement-building to me.”

    I am not in any way suggesting that people need to have a “perfect” analysis or that we should not be trying to win over the broad masses, including some people who are on the “Right” at this time.

    None of these important bigger shifts in public opinion can, or will, EVER take place WITHOUT the role of advanced political organizations leading important human rights struggles. And these types of organization MUST have a “LEFT” tilt to their overall analysis and strategical orientation, otherwise we accomplish NOTHING in the long run! And we will most certainly end up being in the REFORMIST dust bin of history without a “Left” leaning compass to guide our political direction.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • shaun f

    You said: “Regulation isn’t a sham…but unfortunately this isn’t a priority for the 1%.”

    You are not making sense here. Under this system, regulation is most certainly an utter “SHAM.” It is NOT “unfortunate [ly]” that the 1% do not not make this a “priority.”

    It is their very nature as capitalists to take care of their own class needs at the horrible expense of the broad masses. Why do you expect any thing different from their rule?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JanCarol

    You said: “Socialised medicine is – socialised medicine…”

    This is really “universal healthcare” taking place in a *Capitalist” system. Of course, there will all the expected violations of human rights that exists in a class based society. THE PEOPLE have little to no fundamental SAY in how the society is run.

    This is par for the course and fully to be expected.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Nancy

    Thank you so much for putting your story out there and questioning this over emphasis on nutrition as being an alleged cure for “mental illness.”

    Other writers here at MIA having been trying to challenge these authors for some time on some of their claims and emphasis.

    Here is part of a long response I made in a past comment section of one of her other blogs:

    “You said: “I wish people would stop using our blogs as an excuse to bash psychiatry and diagnostic labels(which we also dislike).”

    “I think this is an unfair and one sided summation of what has taken place at MIA in response to your past blogs. I think you need to take some responsibility (in some instances) for a lack of clarity on certain issues and, at times, an OVEREMPHASIS in your writings on the role of nutrition in resolving the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness.”

    “Some people have raised some very important issues to be considered when viewing this research into the role of nutrition, especially as it relates to trauma and other stressors in children’s environmental experience. And there have been times when you have been overly defensive, and viewed any serious questions as simply “inappropriate” attacks.”

    “I believe that Dragon Slayer has raised some important issues here, but I do NOT accept his conclusion that the essence of your work is somehow “coercive psychiatry in another form.” It is too bad that we can’t sort out the “wheat from the chaff.”

    “I support the value of your research and efforts in area of nutrition, but also believe it is vitally important that the certain conclusions drawn from this work get presented in a way that does not mislead people about the priorities of what needs to take place in the world to create a more safe and secure environment for children.”

    “In a past blog I attempted to raise some of these important issues of clarification AND emphasis, and may have been unfairly lumped in as a naysayer and “inappropriate” critic of your work. Here is my comment which was never responded to:”

    “Hi Bonnie”

    “You said: “…our research has helped put on the map the idea that mental health problems CAN be addressed through nutrition, offering an alternative to our current approaches.”

    “What exactly is meant by this statement, especially your emphasis on the word “CAN”? I am a firm believer in science and the scientific method. I support your efforts at researching the value of nutrition as a valuable “aid” to recovery, but I believe it can be harmful and even dangerous to exaggerate its meaning if not backed up by proven science.”

    “In my comment above I stated the following:
    “And more importantly, RECOVERY from these negative and harmful experiences in life must ultimately be UNDERSTOOD AND ADDRESSED in each person”s own experience and timetable for recovery. This may, or may not, require therapy, but most certainly will require A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT to nurture one’s recovery.”

    “It is here where good nutrition and gut health may be an important ENHANCEMENT or ADDITIONAL SUPPORT for such recovery by aiding a more suitable INTERNAL BODY ENVIRONMENT for such recovery, but NOT the PRINCIPLE MEANS for such recovery to take place.”

    “A person in recovery will STILL have to address the original traumas that began their conflict with their environment AND the subsequent traumas that took place when they encountered AN OPPRESSIVE “MENTAL HEALTH” SYSTEM that added to, and reinforced, earlier traumas. There can be no SUBSTITUTE OR SHORTCUT for doing this work.”

    “Could you please respond to my point about what will most often be the “principle means” for recovery from “mental health” issues? And could you justify not using quotations when using the term “mental health?”

    “Respectfully, Richard”

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “The primary clash in the AP movement is between anti-psychiatry survivors and “mental health” professionals, regardless of ideology.”

    This is a classic example of your dip into “Identity Politics” which is very connected to your unfortunate “reformist” proposal to reconcile with the Right Wing in the anti-psychiatry movement.

    The anti-psychiatry movement (in the making) is in a fundamental (life and death) clash with the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial Complex (PPIC). And the PPIC has become an important pillar of the capitalist system. THIS is the main struggle going on, and we all need to recognize and identify this.

    For you to over emphasize contradictions between survivors and professionals is straight up Identity Politics in this context. Of course, these contradictions must be addressed, but we must know our priorities in the overall struggle and where those particular struggles (among the “people”) fit in.

    In the anti-psychiatry movement (in the making) where the hell are all these “clashes” between survivors and professionals you describe as the principle conflict? There is an extremely small number of professionals today who are (all the way) anti-psychiatry.

    In any anti-psychiatry organization formed today, professionals would represent a tiny tiny minority. Why do you want to focus on (and foment) this contradiction into something it is NOT?

    At a future time, I will go much deeper into the question of the negative role of *Identity Politics* in current political movements, including in the AP movement. I am surprised that YOU would be the one to champion such positions.

    Dragon Slayer has serious limitations in his ability to understand the OVERALL role of psychiatry in the world today, and especially, how to go about abolishing it. That does not mean that I don’t occasionally pick up a nugget or two of understanding from him in the course of his writings.

    I would have no problem working in an organization with DS, IF he accepted principles of unity that involved anti-System language connecting psychiatry to capitalism.

    In today’s world, for an anti-capitalist political activist person such as yourself, to be actively building ANY human rights struggle attempting to reconcile the LEFT with the RIGHT, is flat out wrong and straight up reformism.

    Oldhead, please reconsider your position here, you are better than this.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead and All

    Oldhead, you said: ” What we should all be looking for in the anti-psychiatry movement is common ground which links the concerns of those who identify as both “right” and “left” — terms which have become largely meaningless anyway in our current retreat from literacy.”

    This political position on the anti-psychiatry movement (or any human rights struggle today) is DEAD WRONG and a prescription for failure, and a guaranteed path into REFORMISM.

    There is NO such thing as reconciliation between Left and Right perspectives and their particular blueprints for the world.

    Correctly defined, “Left” represents an anti System/capitalist perspective. And does not yet necessarily require an exact agreement on the replacement for the class based /profit system of capitalism. This will be ultimately be determined in the course of the revolutionary struggle that transforms the world.

    “Right” in today’s world represents holding onto, and defending, an oppressive status quo of class oppression and all the other manifestations of inequality. And for some it may even mean going backwards towards more outright fascism and ultra authoritarian rule.

    These two world outlooks cannot, and should not, be reconciled.

    Therefore, Dragon Slayer’s world (or anyone else’s on the Right) that somehow wants to eliminate psychiatry (which is really impossible because of the inseparable links between capitalism and psychiatry) would still be a highly oppressive world, with ALL the other forms of human rights oppression.

    Oldhead, would you really want to live in this world, even if psychiatry was somehow missing (which again, is impossible)???

    ANY, and ALL, politically advanced organizations taking on human rights struggles in today’s world (such as, anti-psychiatry) must have an anti System perspective if it wants to have ANY MEANINGFUL impact on changing the world for the better.

    We accomplish NOTHING of substance in the world today, if we are not educating and drawing together people, who eventually grow to understand that there is NO human progress in this historical era (in fact, the planet and the human race will die from environmental or nuclear destruction) as long as the capitalist system continues to exist.

    Organizing from this anti-capitalist system perspective actually creates favorable conditions (over time) for many of those people currently on the Right to shift to a more Left position. This will NOT happen with a watered down attempt to reconcile “Left” and “Right.”

    Oldhead, the surprising and confusing thing here is that you know exactly what I am saying is true for every other human rights struggle. You have been correctly advocating for a similar position here at MIA for several years.

    BUT, when it comes to the anti-psychiatry movement, you somehow abandon your revolutionary politics and opt for a watered down, impossible reconciliation of “Left” and “Right.” This is very sad and disappointing. I hope you will take a serious look at the contradictions in your position here.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • shaun f

    You said: “This is why regulation is necessary.”

    The key question is “regulation by whom?”

    As long as we live in a capitalist society the so-called “regulation” will always be controlled by those who hold the key instruments of power. Thus the wolf will be overseeing the chicken coop.

    Just calling for “more regulation” is a dead end and a sham.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Thanks for responding.

    Yes, there are some unique developments in medicine since the 70’s and 80″s that need to be understood. But they have nothing to do with socialism.

    Socialism and capitalism are accurately defined as polar opposites. One cultivates a class system where a tiny upper class monopolizes control over the means of production, distribution of goods and services, and various forms of political power. The rich get richer and poor get poorer, while the poor die in huge numbers in periodic imperialist wars between capitalist countries trying to carve up the world into spheres of economic and political dominance.

    Real socialism would be moving society in the direction (slowly) of eliminating classes by having state ownership of the major means of production, and the profit motive, in all its manifestations, gradually eliminated. Health care in all its forms would be a human right guaranteed to ALL citizens. This would require learning important lessons from the past socialist experiments that were ultimately defeated and had some intrinsic errors that need to be summed up and corrected.

    There would be NO NEED for insurance companies (huge saving right off the bat) and doctors and pharmaceutic production would not be allowed to profit from any medical care. They would simply be paid well for an important service to our society. And those citizens who truly wanted to help other human beings (rather than become wealthy) would be encouraged to become part of that profession.

    The rise of “Biological” psychiatry, which involves the collusion of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry (at its highest levels) is unique to this recent period of American history. Psychiatry has always been oppressive, but this is psychiatry on steroids. It now has developed (over the past 40 years) into an even more intense, harmful, and useful form of social control for upper class’s control and maintenance of the status quo and its class based system.

    Oldhead is correct about Medicare and Medicaid. These were social programs meant to prevent outright social revolt from the underclasses and marginalized sections of society who live and work on the outskirts of mainstream society.

    Lawrence, you said: “Richard. If our health care and our health insurance sectors were both private, or if they were both socialized, I don’t think we’d be witnessing horrible actions such as greedy, drug-dealing doctors zombifying nearly the entire American population. It’s the combination of the two.”

    Privatizing insurance would change nothing, and things would continue as they are, only getting worse quicker.

    A single payer system/government controlled and run, might make things somewhat better for a period of time, and would certainly help people with no insurance if it was made available to ALL citizens for little to no cost. But given all the power and influence of the major industries and entities making profit from medical care, this type of single payer system would be made unworkable, and/or sabatoged, on every front over a period of time. It would merely be a band aid placed on a deadly form of cancer.

    There is simply no saving of the planet from environmental destruction and/or through imperialist wars (or solving ANY major social problem), without moving through and beyond the capitalist era in human history.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “However I do think DS is right about focusing on the main point, as the larger context is a given.”

    Since when is targeting capitalism in these discussions some sort of distraction?

    The so-called “larger context” is NOT yet understood by very many people, that is, the intimate connections between capitalism and the Medical Model, and how their future is inseparably intertwined.

    Both DS and Lawrence want to have an abstract discussion about the evils of the Medical Model WITHOUT drawing any connections to the System that needs and sustains this oppressive Psychiatric/ Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex.

    We cannot end all forms of psychiatric oppression without discussing these much larger questions of economic and political context.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bradford

    The law of survival in capitalism is to achieve the highest rate of profit by any means necessary OR be destroyed or eaten up by other competing capitalists.

    Where is there ANY evidence that the capitalist system somehow arises from human nature? Human nature is an extremely malleable entity in the world.

    In some ENVIRONMENTS human beings can be very loving and cooperative. In other environments that promote competition for survival of the worst kinds, human beings can and will be violent and very selfish.

    Bradford, it is the ENVIRONMENT that triggers these types of behaviors and patterns of human nature. Just as it is the ENVIRONMENT that can trigger normal responses (depression, anxiety, psychological disassociation etc) to abnormal (traumatic and stressful) conditions that get labeled as “mental illness.”

    The powerful elites who run the capitalist system want us to believe (and spend billions propagating these lies) convincing us that capitalism is somehow an expression of an inherent quality of human nature. Just as they spread similar lies justifying the Medical Model.

    Bradford, don’t fall for these lies, you are better than that.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Why did/do doctors/psychiatrists seek a higher and higher income by buying into the disease model and prescribing more and more drugs?

    Why does Big Pharma (colluding with psychiatry) corrupt the scientific process, create new diseases, and sell more and more new drugs to treat them?

    The answer is simple: PROFIT, WEALTH, AND POWER – THE BEDROCKS OF MODERN CAPITALISM.

    Lawrence, why is it that you never target the capitalist system in any of your writings? You seem to only want to focus on the “symptom” of a much larger “disease” in our society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ben

    Thank you for that indepth critical analysis of psychoanalysis and the sharing of your personal struggle in the field of psychiatry.

    It clearly sounds like you are truly helping some people in your work. I would like to push you a bit on a few subjects brought up in your blog.

    You said: “…most child psychiatric problems can be handled effectively without medication…”

    I have three things to challenge about this statement. By using the term “most” aren’t you giving up enormous ground to the current Medical Model paradigm by suggesting that drugs have a significant role to play in “helping” children. After all “most” could mean anything under 50% of the time.

    Shouldn’t we be saying that these psychiatric drugs should “rarely, if ever be used.” And if used at ALL, it should be for an extremely brief period of time.

    Also, you used the term “psychiatric problems.” Exactly what are “psychiatric problems.” Are you you not leaving the door open to accepting the the “brain disease” and/or “chemical imbalance” pseudo-scientific theories and harmful labeling? Are these not more correctly described as problems that emerge from a child’s conflict with their environment. – an environment that is filled with much trauma and multiple kinds of injustices?

    And by referring to psychiatric drugs as “medications” are you not conceding to the Medical Model a false narrative that they have spent hundreds of billions of dollars propagating in the world’s largest medical hoax over the past half century? Should we not ALWAYS call these mind altering drugs exactly what they are – “psychiatric drugs?”

    And finally, since you have now settled into providing some forms of helpful THERAPY to the people you see in your work, isn’t it time that dissident psychiatrists begin to declare that psychiatry is NOT a legitimate medical specialty? Shouldn’t you also declare that psychiatry has become a very harmful instrument of social control in society and needs to be abolished? And those dissident psychiatrists who wish to be a caregivers, can either move on to neurology or settle into a role as a therapist.

    Just think how powerful your example in the world would be if you took such a highly controversial and moral stance in your profession.

    Thanks again for writing and being open to dialogue here at MIA.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • To all

    Since I made my above comment to Oldhead regarding major questions of strategy, I do want to comment on the above blog as well.

    As to “Prescripticide: A Proposal for Action and a Request for Your Help”:

    This effort can and must be supported as a potential blow against psychiatry and the Medical Model.

    It is not a perfect strategy nor necessarily where I would want to focus my major energy, but I will support it wholeheartedly.

    I agree with the essential content of Sylvain’s above comment.

    And to further add to his/her class analysis, I now believe that psychiatry and their Medical Model has become a necessary and essential means of social control defending and propping up modern day capitalism, AND that the fate of BOTH have become inseparably linked.

    So, adding to my above point to Oldhead, any advanced political organization against psychiatry must have (if it wants to have an important political role in the world) a clearly LEFT political stance and program. Which means it should contain some language linking the oppressive nature of psychiatry and the Medical Model to capitalism, and see the importance of opposing both because they are an impediment to ending ALL forms of human oppression in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Why would such an organization have to be composed ONLY of survivors?

    Why in this stage of political movements in this country can’t we move beyond a form of “Identity Politics” which implies that only survivors can fully understand psychiatric oppression and be able to strongly unite together with a clear anti-psychiatry basis of unity.

    Such a “united” organization of ALL people opposed to psychiatry, psychiatric oppression, and the Medical Model, would clearly be led by survivors in both numbers and promotion of leadership. This would especially be true if this was made an important organizing principle right from the start of such an organization.

    Yes, we must be aware of the past contradictions with “professionals” (related to power differential and credentials etc.) that occurred in past organizing efforts. And yes, we should address these potential problems right from the beginning.

    BUT why make such a principle out of these differences (by organizing around “identity”) that it prevents us from uniting on higher levels of unity and strength through both numbers and connections to the “mental health” system?

    Where is the evidence today that separating people off as “survivor,” “professional,” and others , including leaving out FAMILY MEMBERS harmed by the Medical Model, is somehow necessary for political organizing in this historical period?

    Obviously, from my questions you can assume that I believe this would represent a step backwards today to approach anti-psychiatry organizing from this type of “separation” principle.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Shaun

    Thanks for reading the blog and your positive feedback.

    I get the clear sense that you are trying to do the best you can for the people you work with, and that your education here is a work in progress.

    Just be aware that merely expanding the depth of your explanation of “informed Consent” does not in any way solve all your the ethical dilemmas here, or does it necessarily absolve you of responsibility for possible harm done to people affected by this system.

    First off, there is no such thing as true *informed consent* given all the major power differentials and the billions of dollars spent each year to propagandize the Medical Model.

    And there can never EVER be true *Informed Consent* when it comes to Electro-Shock. And your comparison of ECT and EMDR, would be like comparing the “stoning” of a person to giving someone a sauna bath.

    I have used EMDR to help people, and I am convinced by all the testing that has been done, and by the benefits I have personally witnessed.

    Electro-Shock (ECT), on the other hand, is barbaric, and there is more than enough evidence (both scientific and personal stories) to abolish its use forever. I think you need to go into MIA’s archives and read up on the numerous articles on this topic.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To Kindredspirit , Sera, and others

    I believe it is both possible AND necessary (in the course of building political movements today) to raise issues of racism, including the horrible history of slavery and all its remaining legacy that is still VERY MUCH alive today.

    I also believe that most white working class people can AND will (over time) be able to recognize the unique history of racial oppression, while also waging struggle with POC to transform the world into a world free of ALL forms of exploitation and related forms of racial, sexual etc… divisions.

    HOWEVER, this will NOT happen by either white or Black activists insisting NOW that ALL white people must FIRST renounce their *White Skin Privilege* and then blindly accept what may be questionable definitions of racism, such as using the “slavery analogy” as it applies to psychiatric oppression and/or “wage slavery” that references higher forms of slavery in the capitalist system.

    All of these sort of changes (including understanding white privileges in society) in thinking and institutional transformations will be a long complicated process with many twists and turns.

    Kindredspirit is correct to raise the importance of a class analysis here, but part of that very important class analysis IS, and MUST BE, a recognition of the unique position and critically important role of Black people (and other POC) in the overall struggle to build socialism and a truly classless society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I completely “get” what you are saying, and this is pretty much exactly how I responded to this issue in the above mentioned blog. And at that time my comment and overall analysis was completely ignored.

    This “movement,” and people such as political activists like myself, all contain elements of racism and other birthmarks from this class based capitalist system. HOWEVER, this DOES NOT in any way characterize the principle aspect of their identity and/or their overall role in the world, which is definitely NOT “racist.”

    The following comment linked here is my best summation of what was wrong with that past blog and Sera’s role in it: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/12/racist-movement-cannot-move/#comment-99010

    And this linked comment also addresses how unfairly you, Humanbeing, and others were treated in that blog comment section.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    Thanks for responding.

    Let me clarify something about my “feelings” in all this. While I am not immune to effects of labeling, I have far too much experience in revolutionary politics over 45 years to take things too “personal” in these kind of struggles.

    I am mainly “hurt” by the divisiveness of this particular political struggle, and the potential damage that this form of *Identity Politics* can do to important political movements, including right here at MIA. And I am deeply invested in the struggle against psychiatric abuse, and genuinely care for the people I have become acquainted with through my involvement here at MIA.

    And that “hurt” involves seeing how this well-intentioned effort to expose racism, so quickly devolved (because of the political errors related to *Identity Politics*) into pitting formerly united (on some limited levels) activists against each other. This went far beyond people just being defensive because you and the other authors said they don’t REALLY understand racism.

    And that disappointment also involves my particular relationship with you, which has a history of mutual support at MIA, and includes certain social interactions on other levels you are aware of.

    If you carefully examine how that blog comment section progressed, you can clearly see that very important opportunities to educate people about racism in America were sidetracked, and ultimately derailed by some of your own blind spots, including a failure to combine and apply a genuine class analysis to your noble efforts to combat racism.

    I hope you will also admit that you just might have some “blind spots” when it comes to adopting the correct methods and approach to advancing the political struggle against racism, sexism etc.

    And I do wonder if you have attempted to read, or have been exposed to any genuine Marxist type historical analyses of *Identity Politics.* And to clarify here (as Uprising has suggested), I am not using the term *Identity Politics* in the same way Liberals used it to sum up the defeat of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

    And do you even believe that *Identity Politics* has any negative connotations, or that it can ever become a problem in political movements?

    And finally, as to the “racist label” I would ask the following two questions: Is the current movement against psychiatric abuse (with all its limitations and different and divergent strands) a “racist movement?” And leaving aside all my personal feelings, is Richard D. Lewis “racist.?”

    I believe how one answers these two questions says volumes about some of the important political questions being debated here.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    I agree that sometimes these political terms are co-opted and misapplied by Right Wing or or other backward forces. So yes, there might be a need in some discussions to clarify its definition and meaning so as to avoid any misunderstanding.

    Although. I would say that if Sera read ALL the comments (and deeply thought about them) she should know that we were NOT misusing this important political terminology.

    If people were to read the above mentioned blog (and I think we all should reread it even if we were involved in the discussion), AND especially the entire comment section, they would have a fairly in depth lesson in the nature of *Identity Politics* as it manifests itself today, and why it is so divisive and harmful to political movements trying to change the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    I find it amazing (though not totally out of the ordinary in political movements) how I can be so completely in agreement and emotionally and politically touched by your most recent blog, “Suicidal Tendencies, Part III”, and at the same time be so in disagreement with a major theme in your joint blog with Iden Campbell and Earl Miller, titled “A Racist Movement Cannot Move.”

    My role in the comment section of that blog is one of my proudest moments as a blogger/commenter here at MIA. I say that not necessarily because it was the best of my writings here, but instead, because of just how complicated, delicate and potentially treacherous that dialogue was through all its twists and turns. AND most importantly, how dangerous and divisive *identity Politics* can be when it takes hold in any particular political movement, and why it must be vigorously opposed. I am convinced that this type of political trend at MIA could have a disintegrating effect, on a similar level as allowing Scientology to become a presence at MIA.

    Again, it saddens me that we agree on so many other important issues here at MIA, but are currently still at loggerheads on this issue.

    AND I will also say that I am still saddened, and yes, hurt by the fact that you have never apologized and/or retracted your statements in that comment section that essentially labeled me as a “racist.” I will post here a link to my response in that particular dialogue challenging your “racist” labeling of certain people (including me) and of the “movement against psychiatric abuse,” of which we are both a part of.

    Here is the link to my past comment in response to that inappropriate and politically wrong labeling: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/12/racist-movement-cannot-move/#comment-99055. To be fair, for anyone interested enough to draw thorough going conclusions regarding this topic, it would require reading the entire blog AND comment section.

    Sera, you are correct in most all of your attempts to point out the harmful effects of the use of certain terminology,words, phrases etc. that continue to reinforce racism, sexism, psychiatric labeling and all other forms of bigotry and divisiveness in the world. I have been very supportive of almost all of your writings on these topics and will continue to do so, even if you never seek resolution of the above mentioned slurring of me and my political position on *Identity Politics.*

    But I would also add, that if you do not find a way to further investigate and seek some study and understanding of the corrosive nature of *Identity Politics,* it will come back to bite you in future political encounters and undermine your ability to maximize your overall impact on ending psychiatric abuse and all other forms of human oppression in the world.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Shaun

    And as a further commentary on your above comment: you said: “Most people in the system, both clients and staff, believe that it’s a helpful system overall.”

    Unfortunately, we all know this to be the case at this time in history. The KEY question here is: What do YOU think is the true and accurate assessment of the current “mental health” system.

    If you believe, as I do, that it causes FAR MORE harm than good, then you MUST (as a moral imperative) act accordingly. And this means (if you carefully analyze the overall situation) that you NEVER EVER use any ‘force’ on those you are entrusted to help.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Shaun

    You said: ” I think that it’s unrealistic to ask clinicians to not follow the law. We have invested time, money, and energy into getting education and training to do what we do.”

    My response to you is as follows: Is it unrealistic to ask clinicians and other professionals to TO NOT HARM the very people they claim they are helping!?

    DO NO HARM is the most fundamental precept that should guide ALL our actions when entrusted to be a helping professional.

    AND if it can be proven that the overall use of ‘force’ causes FAR MORE harm than good, than you MUST (as a moral imperative) take all the ethical and legal risks to protect people from harm by NEVER subjecting them ANY forms of ‘force.’

    And Shaun, based on your above response, it is very clear to me that you have not yet read the blog I provided a link for above. Please read this blog along with the entire comment section and THEN tell me it is okay to continue using ‘force’ in your job.
    https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/10/may-force-never-ever-case-abolition/

    And BTW, my above short comment clarified my misuse of the “mandated reporting” terminology.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera and Shaun

    This is exactly true. Where I use to work a clinician could have less than a 5 minute conversation with a doctor and this could lead to a chain reaction of events that would strip a person of all Constitutional Rights, force them in a hospital, which could then lead to being tied down to a gurney and forcibly drugged. And who knows how long this horrible odyssey would continue and how damaged that person would become if they were able to physically survive.

    This is the state of present day “freedom and justice” in America.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    I agree that my use of the terminology “mandated reporting” here was confusing and did not consider the whole issue of protecting children and the elderly.
    Thanks for pointing that out.

    I believe it is more correct to say that there are ethical standards in our profession that say we are “mandated” to report individuals (to doctors, police, and/or crisis centers) who are suicidal, which is what I was trying to focus on.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve and ALL

    Everything you say is true. So why mess with some fundamental principles and a particular format that got us here? Once again, I am NOT against changes that improve things, but there is simply NO reasonable justification to suddenly hide the comment section from readers, and create a COMMENT BAR that readers must click on to see other readers comments.

    Since you still have an independent voice here, please give me one good reason that makes any sense for making THIS particular change at this time. Again, I am not talking about all the other proposed changes.

    At first I was NOT inclined to think (as some of the other people’s criticisms have suggested) that some of the other proposed changes were meant to diminish and/or limit certain more radical perspectives here at MIA. Now I am not so sure.

    What reason (please tell me, some one out there) could there be for having a COMMENT BAR, other than to have readers avoid seeing the very first (or first few) comments in the comment section?

    Now since there are a certain relatively small number of regular readers and commenters that are more often on the anti-psychiatry (or close to that perspective) side of things, AND they often can be very politically incisive (IMHO, usually very insightful), and that includes their ability to point out problematic formulations and ideas, there is a higher probability that they might end up being the first, or one of the first commenters under a blog.

    This is really a random phenomena, and I am often surprised when it happens that I end up having the first opportunity to be the very first to comment under a blog. I try to take full advantage of this opportunity, but I approach EACH AND EVERY COMMENT the same.

    Which means, I always point out things that are positive in the blog and that I agree with, BEFORE I move onto any particular criticisms. But I can sometimes be harsh on what I view as very harmful or arrogant perspectives. However, in all this I believe I am quite civil in my discourse and dialogue.

    My comments number well over a thousand, and I believe I have only been moderated maybe three times in 7 years or so, and this involved some form of sarcasm. And even though I am politically on the anti-psychiatry side of things, one of my moderated comments was actually directed towards another anti-psychiatry commenter (that’s a whole other story).

    So my major point here is that there is a higher probability that a more radical perspective may end up in the very first comment under any particular blog. This raises the question: is this policy meant to avoid having “sensitive” people see these very first few comments for fear that it may somehow “drive them away” from MIA.

    I say then , WHAT ABOUT all those people who read a mediocre, boring, or politically “bad” blog, and want to leave (or give up on) the MIA website, but are suddenly intrigued, then impressed, and then highly stimulated to become a regular reader after seeing the very HIGH LEVEL of critically thinking commenters that can break down concepts and politically dissect ideas that help lead to a higher understanding of psychiatric oppression, and then use that new understanding to help work towards changing the world into a better place.

    Yes, let’s ALL be more civil here, but let’s not forget about what’s at stake here, and exactly what kind of political discourse and struggle is truly necessary to bring about genuine change in the world.

    Think about about the decisive times in your life when you went through very profound changes in your world outlook. Did these changes come about without some personal discomfort and/or cognitive dissonance?

    Think about those individuals who challenged and inspired you to reconsider your viewpoints? Were these people always gentle, patient, overly civil, NAMBI PAMBI with you. OR were these kinds of conversations often contentious, and even sometimes outright argumentative, that set in motion the kind of political groundwork necessary for seismic shifts in your overall thinking.

    Again, please reconsider this very first backward direction change.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • James

    Thanks for your response.

    I still stand strongly with my above comment.

    Any MIA policy promoting MORE commenting and discussion would definitely WANT the comment section to be visibly part of the reader’s experience right from the git go. Something that appears in their face (if you will) at the end of every blog. And I use the phrase “in your face” with some humor associated to it, because in the grand scheme of things this is hardly an example of ANY kind of internet pressure or “force.”

    Yes, I believe that there are some people that have certain issues and strong reactions to how the comment section at MIA is conducted. HOWEVER, I cannot believe that there was a SINGLE PERSON responding to the survey that complained that somehow they were FORCED to look at comments “against their will” because their was no COMMENT BAR to click in order to give them some sort of so-called CHOICE! to face the “unwashed hoard of demon commenters.” I hope you can appreciate and understand a little use of sarcasm here to make this very important point about “choice.”

    You said: “… what we aim to do with all of our changes here is enable more choice for the reader/commenter…”

    This kind of so-called “choice” (involving how MIA situates the comment section) cuts right to the heart of MIA’s mission in the world, and how it evolved out of the historical struggle against various forms of psychiatric abuse in the world. This “choice” is completely different than when someone chooses (by clicking) to see a podcast or read some scientific article circulating on the internet.

    MIA does NOT give its readers a “choice” of what the titles of the blogs will be, or where on the webpage certain articles will be featured. Both writers and MIA editors/staff make these very important AND very political decisions AND choices on these journalistic issues of design. Many of these titles are, by themselves, provocative, politically charged, “triggering,” intriguing etc. etc.. as they should be, on any important and socially relevant webzine.

    After all, MIA and most of those people regularly active on the website, are not JUST interested in understanding the world better (important as that is), we also very much WANT the world to change for the better. And we are looking for every opportunity and means for this to happen, including the very necessary need for more dialogue and discussion in the world. AND yes, including sometimes very contentious and cognitively dissonant discussions that at times makes us, and others, uncomfortable. AND yes, I believe in the importance of “civility” in those discussions.

    To now somehow say that the mere positioning of the comment section at MIA must conform to the “wishes” (which again, I believe no single reader complained they were “forced” to view comments “against their will”) of the most sensitive of its readers, is both gratuitous and very misguided. It clearly comes across as appealing to the “lowest common denominator” and giving in on very critical issues of political principle.

    This new approach (on the comment bar) is NOT going to achieve the desired result of increasing readership AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, bringing more people into the type of activism that could potentially weaken the very oppressive Medical Model and hopefully change the world for the better.

    Those of us who might find this first change very off putting and misguided, are NOT somehow stuck in an old routine and afraid of change. We have very real concerns about the very essence of the intent and ultimate result of these changes.

    You said: ” The reader survey told us that there was dissatisfaction, it seems wrong to ask people to tell us about their experiences of commenting if all along we planned to do nothing about it.”

    I am NOT saying, nor do I believe others who have raised concerns, that changes should NEVER be made OR that we should not listen to readers thoughts and feelings. I support the moderation policies and I support the efforts to increase readership AND participation, BUT NOT at the expense of very important political principles. Political principles that have been tested over many centuries of important social upheaval that has pushed the world towards a trajectory of more freedom and social justice.

    This is a very BAD start to a possibly necessary process. Please, please think again and reconsider this initial comment bar change. Yes, do all your other changes and THEN come back to this at a later date after further discussion and consideration; AFTER we have had time to digest these other changes.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Shaun and Sera

    Sera has written a very powerful piece here that is filled with enormous wisdom and courage regarding how to relate to people who are in such emotional distress that their very life may be on the line.

    The decisions about how to relate to (not “treat”) someone in this kind of emotional distress where they are suicidal, is almost identical to the decisions involved in the whole “sectioning” debate (that is, forced “treatment” and/or incarceration) that will occur if you (as a professional) notify any doctor and/or psychiatrist of suicidal or violent thoughts on the part of the individual.

    Over several years, as a professional, I have come to (with the help of MIA) the exact same conclusions as Sera, regarding how to handle suicidal thoughts and the related issues of forced “treatment.” Here is a link to a blog I wrote a few years ago on this same subject titled “May the Force NEVER EVER Be With You! The Case for Abolition.” https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/10/may-force-never-ever-case-abolition/

    Shaun, in response to your question about being a “mandated reporter” with the so-called professional “responsibility” to report someone with this level of psychological distress, and possibly suffer professional and legal consequences if you choose NOT to report that person:

    If you want to take a morally and politically correct stance here, you MUST take the risk of losing your job and/or suffering other legal consequences, by NOT reporting this person AND relate to the troubled person in a similar fashion as Sera has so eloquently demonstrated here.

    The reality here is that If your actions cause someone to be forced into a form of incarceration in a hospital, there is a GREATER overall risk of immediate and/or long term harm, including INCREASING the future risk of this person ending their life by suicide at a future date BECAUSE of the very chain reaction of events that you started by making the initial report.

    Ironically, if that person DID take their life after getting out of a forced hospitalization (that you initiated by your actions) you would suffer absolutely NO professional or legal consequences. Instead, you would only be praised and consoled by other professionals, who ALL want to self justify and reaffirm the workings of an oppressive system that they knowingly AND unknowingly continue to “enable” with “mandated reporting.”

    My blog mentioned above makes it very clear that once you start saying there are extreme circumstances or exceptions where some type of “force” may be necessary, you start reinforcing a slippery slope into a deadly abyss. You might want to read the very long comment section that follows this blog for it is both rich and extremely comprehensive covering every possible argument for and against the use of “force.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi James

    I did not comment on the proposed changes because I was not sure how these changes would positively or negatively impact MIA and its overall mission.

    HOWEVER, I already have a big problem with one of your VERY FIRST changes you’ve made here. Why should I, or anyone else, have to click on the COMMENT BAR in order to see and participate in the comment section. Respectfully, this is totally ass backwards and cuts against any, and all, of the proposed efforts to promote discussion of published blogs.

    We should definitely WANT people to clearly see that there IS a comment section and hopefully be intrigued enough to at least start reading the comments. It should be up to those who definitely DON’T WANT to participate and/or EVEN SEE (God forbid!) the comment section, to HAVE TO make the effort to make a click in order to totally avoid this process. I cannot possibly see ANY justification for this particular change. Just because there are other websites that do it this way should have no influence what so ever on the direction and choices of MIA.

    I am willing to give the other proposed changes a chance over the course of the coming period, but I must say that I was immediately put off and offended by this first change.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    It is impossible to provide the statistics you are looking for because most likely close to a 100% of those with serious pain issues are being drugged in one way or another. That is, with either opiates and/or psychiatric drugs, including huge cocktails of both categories of drugs.

    Very few people are ever introduced to well designed programs to mitigate pain, such as those involving motion exercises, meditation, diet changes, and/or CBT or other forms of talk therapy, BEFORE they are given drugs. And I would also speculate that very FEW people give these alternative approaches a serious chance to work over a long period of sustained effort and guidance.

    Part of the reason why good alternative approaches do not happen is because the ALLURE of the “quick fix” drug “solution” is so readily available and advertised everywhere in our society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • beckys11

    By itself, chronic pain has very little to do with suicide. It is all the harmful drug prescribing practices by mainstream medicine and psychiatry that push people over the edge.

    These drugs may have some short term positive effects, but in the long term they actually increase people’s sensitivity to pain and disable their own natural coping mechanisms.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • No one should deny the fact that benzos might have a valuable role for someone in acute crisis, including some type of psychotic break. BUT they should only be used for a short period of time, probably no more than one week, if that. Any longer period of time has a HUGE risk of causing major dependency, addiction, and/or withdrawal problems.

    There are millions of benzo victims (mainly women) in the world today searching desperately for a way to safely taper off of these dangerous and harmful drugs.

    Jeffrey, you are dead wrong to say that it is a myth that the over prescription of opioids has fueled the opioid crisis. I have seen figures of at least 60% of all heroin addicted people since the late 1990’s came to use the drug AFTER having developed an iatrogenic dependency on opioids from dangerous prescribing patterns by doctors, encouraged and pushed by Big Pharma.

    There are a hundred million prescriptions every year for benzos, and a sizeable percentage of these drugs end up in the street and purchased by, and/or given to opioid addicted people. There is a lot of blood on the hands of certain top leaders in medicine. psychiatry, and Big Pharma.

    AND there will be no justice and/or an end to these crimes in our society unless. and until, we live in a world that outlaws these behaviors and puts people like this in jail.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Welcome to a very difficult job and position at MIA, but I am confident you will be fair and do a good job.

    I am also glad that individuals who work at MIA, at the same time, can be open and honest with their views in blog submissions and comments while still working within the agreed upon parameters at MIA. Why should someone’s voice go silent just because they work within an organizational structure? We need all the voices we can get, especially those who are passionate and articulate in their beliefs.

    The most difficult area of moderation will often be when evaluating the use of sarcasm. Sarcasm definitely has a positive role in these discussions as a way to delineate the different political and philosophical viewpoints. However TOO much sarcasm may sometimes go over the line where it can become a way to personally attack or degrade someone’s character. This will be one of the most challenging parts of your moderation role at MIA.

    And finally, one of my biggest concerns at MIA (which I wrote in my evaluation) would be if “Identity Politics” were somehow to take hold, and it resulted in the literary police banning certain political terms and phrases (such as the “slavery” analogy) because some people found it distasteful, or claim it is not permitted if you do not have the “correct” or proper “identity” credentials etc. I am very glad that this kind of “identity Politics” approach has not reared its head for sometime at MIA, and that is very refreshing.

    And finally, Steve, the next time there is a “Scientology” discussion you and I are going to have to find a way to “settle up” outside somewhere. Perhaps we could “beat” on each other with some wet pages form a ripped up DSM V. Carry On! We have much work to do!

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Benzos have always been a crisis on the level of the poly-drug (opioid) crisis. They are both deeply intertwined and have undergone a parallel path of exponential growth in prescriptions. .

    There is documented evidence that benzos are involved in fatal opiate drug overdoses at LEAST 30% of the time.

    My best estimate woulld be that this figure is closer to 50% of the time. Benzos are highly sought after drugs by those people using opiates on a regular basis.This is because of the synergism between the two drugs where benzos will greatly magnify the effect of the “high.”

    In fact benzos are often THE decisive drug in the cocktail that ends up killing people. This is because most opiate addicted people know how to use their opiates, but often they forget how many benzos they consumed on any given day. It is only a matter of time before the “Perfect Storm of Addiction” will come around.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • bcharris

    You just revealed in this comment why it is SO WRONG for this author to continue to use the term, “scientism” repeatedly in his titles and subtitles throughout his blogs. The use of the word, and people’s interpretation of it, usually make no sense at all.

    This blog is NOT exposing any kind of MISUSE of science or exposing someone being TOO scientific (although I’ve never understood how that can be a problem) where science does not apply. This is exposing nothing more, or nothing less than, “bad” science, “corrupted” science, “phony” science, and/or simply “pseudo-science.”

    The author does use this latter phrase “pseudo-science” in his last sentence when he drops the phrase “pseudo-science scientism.” This ends ups being some type of gibberish phrase, like saying “bad bad” or “phony Phony” etc. etc.

    Dr. Timimi’s blogs contain some very important scientific and political exposure of Biological Psychiatry. But when he uses the term “scientism” (which he has NEVER carefully defined) he detracts from, and undercuts, the heart of his message. There is NO USEFUL PURPOSE for his use of this term in his critiques of psychiatric oppression.

    The term “scientism” is MOST OFTEN used by people who want to attack the legitimate use of science in its exposure of superstition, climate change, and other controversial topics such as certain religious myths. Here it is understandable why someone might resent people being TOO scientific when they are relying on faith to determine reality, and holding onto some type of Right Wing agenda.

    Both psychiatry and their colluding partner, Big Pharma, operate under the cover of alleged legitimate science, but this blog (along with all the other exposures at MIA) have revealed that these institutions only distort, pervert, undermine, and corrupt the scientific method in order to arrive at their false pseudo-scientific, and ultimately harmful, conclusions.

    Please leave it all at “pseudo-science” and drop the nonsensical term “scientism.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    Great comments in this thread.

    There is another explanation, or social theory, for understanding the behavior that gets labeled “manic” or “mania.”

    Some believe that it can be a person’s attempt to desperately “outrun” their depression.

    A person can become very desperate to NOT have to slow down and think about and face some very difficult and painful things going on in their life (such as traumatic experiences), that they become super focused and involved in various types of behaviors or activities as a major strategy and tactic of avoidance.

    Behaviors such as talking real fast, increased physical activity, obsessive creativity, not sleeping, grandiose scheming etc. etc., all have the very REAL purpose to AVOID having to dwell upon and confront the reality of very real and/or perceived psychic pain and/or physical pain.

    All this can be a a person’s tactical and strategic (both conscious and unconscious) behavior to avoid a horrible reality. This adaptive (and sometimes very creative and successful) behavior can often help a person survive difficult circumstances, and even prevent people from taking their own life as a final solution to avoid the psychic pain.

    But this adaptive form of behavior is not without its many risks. People can eventually become totally physically and emotionally exhausted, and eventually “crash and burn” as they hit a wall by encountering much conflict and resistance from their environment (the people they encounter and the boundaries and limits they have crossed). And they can often fall into a deep depression when they eventually must slow down and think about (and even dwell upon) those painful things in life they expended so much desperate energy trying to avoid.

    More “food for thought.” This is why environmental context is SO very important to understand in these discussions, which many above commenters have pointed out with much insight. I also agree that this approach was very much lacking in the above blog.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Great review of an important book.

    I believe there is an important role for those dissidents working inside this oppressive “mental health” system.

    It is a very difficult and treacherous road to travel, but it can be appropriately navigated IF one is willing to stay connected to a system critical movement on the outside, AND also be willing to continuously self-interrogate themselves so as to avoid any form of “enabling” of the System and the ongoing dangers of “burnout.”

    I also liked Noel’s broader description of the word and meaning of “trauma.” This class based capitalist system has a million and one ways to alienate people and transform all human relationships into some form of “commodity” type relationship, which perverts our human essence.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kirk

    Thanks for responding to my post.

    You said: ” If the oppressed have absolutely nothing in common with their oppressors I see the potential recipe for what we saw in The Terror of the French Revolution or in Stalinist Russia or Maoist China. Reversals of oppression can be just as oppressive as those who originally oppressed…”

    So what should I conclude from this statement – that it is FOOLISH or ILL ADVISED for oppressed people to rise up against their oppressors??? That it is FOOLISH AND ILL ADVISED for oppressed people try to bring into being a new type of system that moves beyond all the inequality and trauma inherent in a profit based class system??? Or that oppressed people should not attempt to move history forward because there is the risk of defeat and/or failure in the first or second time around.

    Summing up the historical experiences of the Russian and Chinese Revolutions in one extremely brief VERY NEGATIVE sentence does a great disservice to importance of understanding these first attempts at building socialism (including all their weaknesses) and moving beyond capitalism, while denying all the very important POSITIVE lessons.

    I still strongly contend that your theoretical approach lacks a genuine class analysis of the world.

    I agree that no Revolution or genuine radical political movement should EVER base its approach (or vision of a new world) on revenge or fear.

    Most oppressed people know their oppressors are human beings, but in reality their class interests in the world are diametrically opposed. In today’s world those people who run this system are guided by the capitalist economic Law of Value which views other humans as a pragmatic means to increase profit by any means necessary, including Imperialist wars. This systems turns human beings into commodities and distorts and traumatizes our human social relationships in so many ways. This reality must be at the HEART of any attempt at explaining extreme forms of human psychological distress in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I like the fact that someone is trying to situate these human problems most fundamentally in the environment, rather than in genetics or brain diseases.

    I DON’T LIKE the name (and what it implies) the, “polarized mind,” that this theorist came up with to explain psychological distress. It seems to contradict the essence of what he/she is arguing for, by once again focusing on the individual mind.

    The author is quoted as saying: “Schneider expects that these types of interventions will allow people to broaden their perspectives and find points of commonality with others, which could reduce polarization.”

    Frankly, this way of approaching human conflicts totally negates a class analysis of society and WILL NOT lead to a world where true equality abounds.

    Class polarization is actually a GOOD thing IF it can ultimately lead to the upper class having its power overthrown and removed from the neck of the oppressed. AND this will NOT happen unless those people in the under classes begin to see they have absolutely NOTHING in common with their oppressors and need to take power from them.

    All this requires the masses to be won over (through education and struggle) that a profit based capitalist system stands as the major obstacle to the advance of all science and an obstacle to all human beings achieving a true commonality of purpose and a sharing of the world’s resources.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The author of this article has created a “straw man” argument for those critics of the over prescription of opiates. No reasonable critic would just say “accept your pain.”

    The author states: “Pain patients are not trying to avoid pain or medicate it away—we are simply trying to get some relief from the daily grind of constant pain.”

    The author CANNOT speak for ALL pain patients. This above statement ignores the reality that today’s medical establishment (and Big Pharma) has definitely encouraged pain patients “to avoid pain or medicate it away.” This is why their are millions of people dependent and/or addicted to opiates, and a significant percentage of those people transition to buying illicit opiates in the streets. AND far too many of these people die from overdoses.

    Long term use of opiates to treat chronic pain is an overall harmful treatment strategy that is NOT successful or backed up by science. There is research that shows that people will have worse outcomes and actually become MORE sensitive to pain (opioid induced hyper-algesia) over time.

    There are other alternatives to using opiates and other drugs to treat pain, such as meditation, CBT therapy, motion exercises, and other forms of physical therapy. Unfortunately many pain patients have become so invested (physically and psychologically) on the opiates, that they will often reject these other strategies. Here we need to blame the medical establishment (and Big Pharma) for this problem.

    No chronic pain patient should EVER be ripped off their opiate drugs. The medical establishment must invest money, time, and effort in correcting a problem of their own making. And in the mean time some of the Big Pharma CEOs should be put in jail for all the deaths and harm they have caused.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Rachel’s link above says only 17% of the surveyed psychiatrist listed no religion when questioned.

    “Original sin” permeates the Bible and most religions.

    Why do you equate atheism with “sophistication” instead of merely the ability to think rationally and scientifically about how the world works and how harmful various forms of superstition can be to the human race.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • bcharris

    You said: ” I’m afraid we’ll have to endure this until we consistently have to endure repeat disasters from this pseudo-science.”

    I think you completely missed the essence of this article which was summed up in the last line.

    “But in all likelihood, the problems will continue until the root cause is addressed — that is, until capitalism no longer dominates the university, and the society that sustains it.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Emily

    BTW, in my reference to the blog “A Racist Movement Cannot Move,” I did not mean to only highlight one comment. You would have to read ALL my comments and those of the authors (and others) to get a clear sense of the different positions, AND the VITAL distinction and political importance of those differences.

    I still have not received an apology for essentially being called a “racist.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • And I would add this point.

    The essence of the LGAT position that bad things that happen to people in the world are essentially part of “THEIR OWN FAULT.” is very similar to the “LAW OF ATTRACTION” promoted in the popular book (several years ago) “The Secret.”

    If someone is raped or abused then they must somehow accept the fact that they “attracted” this behavior. What a F#$king “blame the victim” philosophy! That book, “The Secret,” and the philosophy it promoted was very harmful.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Emily

    Thanks for those comments.

    If you have the time you might want to read the very long comment section to a very controversial blog ( https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/12/racist-movement-cannot-move/#comment-98719 ) that appeared at MIA perhaps before you arrived here.

    I believe there were some elements of a harmful group/think approach in the form of “Identity Politics,” that if taken to their extreme, and then codified here at MIA, it would have had disasterous results for the future political role and growth of MIA.

    I don’t really expect you to comment on that here, but sometime I’d like to hear your assessment of this important debate and dialogue.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Emily

    Your more direct presence here will be SORELY missed, both as a moderator and your decision making presence on the future editorial and political direction of MIA.

    I share Oldhead’s basic points in response to the essence of your blog. When it comes to music the term “polyphony” has a clear meaning and application. BUT as to politics and making Revolutionary change in the world, I believe it only has a very limited meaning and application. To make a “principle” out of “polyphony” in political activism has the very real danger of promoting “relativism” – there are no “absolute truths” at any given historical time that require necessary and decisive action in the real world, including in the area of establishing humane “laws” that end certain harmful institutions, behaviors and practices.

    I would also say that I detected a certain amount of pessimism in your blog regarding the future possibility of real Revolutionary change in the world. At the very least it (big change) came across as very remotely distant, and this could be related to your emphasis on the need for “polyphony” in future political discourse and activity in the world.

    HOWEVER, after just now (I must have missed this when it first came out) reading your past blog on your horrible cult experience with “Large Group Awareness Training,” I now more fully understand some of the evolutionary development of your philosophical and political approach to things.

    My reaction to this blog on the LGAT experience is, HOLY SHIT!!! what a horrible traumatic experience. Not only did this group traumatize you with their oppressive cult group/think methods, but they most likely totally destroyed the relationship you had with your then, fiance. I am so sorry you had to endure this, and in some ways it sounds as bad, or almost as bad, as what you experienced with this oppressive “mental health” system.

    The LGAT group sounds very much like the cult, Scientology. And if you had continued with them you might have experienced even greater thought control and coercive methods employed by them at higher levels. AND they would have definitely taken a lot more of your money to boot (once again, the negative role of the profit motive f$#king things up in the world).

    I refuse to call Scientology a “church,” and I am very dismayed at some commenters here at MIA that continue to minimize the danger of Scientology, given all their monetary, property, and legal resources that are very much at their disposal.

    Emily, I hope to maintain contact with you, especially when I spend more time in your area of Florida (in the winter months) while you attend school there. I would like to meet some of the other ‘critical psychiatry” and/or “anti-psychiatry” people in that area, and hopefully engage in educational endeavors, social activities, and other forms of direct political action. My brain tends to turn to “mush” when I am in Florida, and I need more provocative political stimulation to prevent that from happening and to be a part of some radical movement activities.

    All the best, Carry on! Richard

    Report comment

  • Dr. Peter Breggin does not always make good political decisions about who to associate with. After 9/11 he took a bad political turn to the “Right” and made several appearances on Michael Savage’s nationally syndicated radio show.

    Michael Savage does promote some critical ideas about psychiatry’s over drugging of people, especially children. BUT Michael Savage is clearly one of the most Right Wing Neo-Fascist talk show hosts in the country. Any internet search of some of his quoted ideas will clearly show what a vile and sickening outlook he promotes on his radio show.

    Lawrence, you haven’t responded to my other comment below.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • There are major problems with this article. Twelve Step approaches to addiction AND Medically Assisted Treatment (MAT) are flip sides of the same “Addiction is a Disease” coin. BOTH are flawed approaches which promote confusion and ultimately undermine (for many people) their attempts to obtain a life free from addiction.

    Yes, AA and NA has helped some people, but no where near the exaggerated claims trumpeted by Twelve Step zealots. Attempts by some people to conform to their Disease Based Model (the “One and Only Road”) has harmed their efforts to become drug free, and caused many people to become pessimistic about the possibility of permanent abstinence.

    Medically Assisted Treatment – MAT, is the new EUPHEMISTIC name for “Opiate Replacement Therapy.” This new name is now calling synthetic opiates a form of “medicine” treating the “disease” of addiction. And they more often encourage people to stay permanently on these mind altering drugs for life.

    Yes, methadone and suboxone have a positive role to play in helping to stabilize people addicted to opiates. And yes, these synthetic opiates have a positive role to play in helping people detox and/or slowly taper from their opiate addiction. But these MAT programs are often profitable enterprises that encourage and promote “maintenance” rather than a goal of abstinence. They promote another version of the “disease” concept of addiction that is merely the flip side of the same coin promoted by Twelve Step AA and NA programs.

    See my link below to a blog I wrote a few years ago on the suboxone and methadone MAT programs.
    And also see another link to a past blog of mine critically analyzing Twelve Step programs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Psychiatry and their entire Medical Model is now firmly embedded within a profit based capitalist system and serves a very critical role in reinforcing and preserving this systems superstructure – ideology and class based institutions. And part of that role is to label, drug, incarcerate, and marginalize any and all potential political deviancy.

    You said: “We should be getting desperate here in the U.S., since pro-medical model propaganda is getting increasingly entrenched in our schools, government, scientific circles, media, and entertainment. Trillions of dollars have been spent on promoting/expanding the psychiatric system, which is drawing in an ever-rising percentage of our population – We’re losing the war, and “Brave New World” is quickly approaching… Are you really interested in stopping psychiatry from destroying our whole country, or are you content to just complain and chat about it with each other?”

    The desperation you describe here (which is very real) SHOULD NOT be directed towards drawing in other despotic individual or groups that promote and support FASCISTIC social and political agendas, no matter how anti-psychiatry they appear on the surface.

    Lawrence, we need to consider Revolutionary approaches to political change BEFORE this planet is destroyed. AND anti-psychiatry political action can be a vital part of this worldwide uprising that needs to take place.

    In past discussions when I have brought up an activist anti-capitalist perspective, you have been dismissive of these politics and claimed the mantle of some type of so-called “nonpolitical” approach. Yet here you are proposing the development of political alliances with neo-fascist groups like Scientology.

    I believe your anti-psychiatry writing and activism will NOT go very far, unless and until, you link up with an understanding of the oppressive Medical Model’s connection to maintaining and preserving a class/profit based economic and political system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thanks Steve and Oldhead

    Both responses (serious and humorous) are necessary critical responses to this blog. While the author has good intentions in his criticisms about the “over” diagnosis and drugging of depression, this still leaves the door open for harmful psychiatric labeling and drugging of those determined to be “clinically” depressed.

    There is NO way to determine this imaginary “line” between “healthy” depression and “clinical” depression.
    And doesn’t this second designation sound rather “clinical’ to everyone here.

    Depression is a necessary and healthy evolutionary response to human conflict with the environment and various social injustices that surround us. It is an important coping mechanism that can unfortunately get stuck in the “on” position for some people in certain circumstances. And yes, this can be terribly painful and debilitating and should NOT be minimized.

    BUT many people have (and will continue to ) find their way out of this morass with the right combination of social supports and time healing personal insights that emerge through difficult struggle.

    Let’s NOT leave the door open for psychiatry and their oppressive Disease/Drug Based paradigm of so-called “treatment” to somehow determine what is a so-called “unhealthy” level of depression that we all need to pathologize with a “clinical” designation.

    Here, in this discussion we once again have a clear distinction between what is “critical psychiatry” and what is genuine “anti-psychiatry.” And it should be obvious from my comment that I stand firmly with the latter.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Mark

    I hope you take the time to read some of the above referenced blogs here at MIA that I provided in earlier comments. There is a wealth of valuable analysis in the writings of both Dr. Hickey and Dr. Joseph.

    Nobody has deconstructed modern psychiatry better than Dr Philip Hickey. People cannot, and should not, promote themselves as being knowledgeable, or learned, in this field without a willingness to suffer the cognitive dissonance encountered when reading these writings with an open mind.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Mark

    Thanks for engaging on these question.

    You said: ” To submit that there have been no reputable studies demonstrating brain changes in patients diagnosed with mental disorder runs counter to reality.”

    Mark if somehow you only thought about sex (or engaged in sex) for 16 hours a day for a certain period of time, there might be some sort of change in your brain activity and/or structure. And then after you stopped for a period of time your brain would most likely return to its “normal” state.

    When or if some changes in the brain took place, this proves NOTHING about so-called “mental illness” or “disorders.” It only means that the brain adapts to abnormal circumstances.

    Mark, you said above that there was an “abundance” of evidence for the biological pathology in so-called “mental illness.” Even some staunch Biological Psychiatrists lament the fact that this evidence has NOT yet been discovered.

    I will provide you two links below that refute the biological model and deconstruct the phony evidence provided so far by psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Mark

    Why would you want to continue to quote Ronald Pies as some authority on the issues of whether or not “mental illness” exists?

    He is the same man, who of recent years, has been a major apologist for psychiatry since it has come under much overdo criticism for its pseudo-science and oppressive forms of so-called treatment.

    He is the same man who called the “chemical imbalance” theory an “urban myth,” while he himself has continued to promote his own version of it. And isn’t he the same apologist who said the “chemical imbalance” theory had some pragmatic value as an explanation (to so-called ignorant patients) even though it has NO validity, because it helped convince them of the viability of psychiatric drugs if the doctor deemed them necessary? I suggest you read some of Dr. Philip Hickey’s scathing blogs (here at MIA) directed towards deconstructing Ronald Pies role as an apologist for psychiatry.

    And Mark you said:
    ” even the purest Szaszians would admit that there has been an abundance of research in the past few decades linking what is called “mental illness” with certain biological changes–to a greater or lesser degree depending on the condition.”

    NO, no, no, this is not a true statement. There is still no discovery of so-called “biological markers” for “mental illnesses” or “disorders.” Please show us the evidence of these “biological changes.” Even the pet scan analyses and brain scan analyses that have evolve into some pseudo-scientific explanations have been blown apart by legitimate scientific appraisal.

    The only verifiable biological changes found over the past two decades that make any sense are those in which the “treatment” by psychiatry, with psychiatric drugs and/or Electro-shock, has seriously (if not sometimes, permanently) perturbed brain function and/or other neuro-chemical processes.

    No major anti-psychiatry critic here at MIA (except those few who want to somehow “romanticize” “mental illness”) denies that there are people deeply disturbed by trauma and other stressors in the environment and present themselves with different behavioral and thought manifestations that reflect this level of psychological distress.

    These are NOT “illnesses” that should in any way be treated in a medical sense, nor are they necessarily permanent conditions. And we need NO medical terminology or biological explanations for them. And there is no scientific evidence up to this point (nor will there ever be, in my view) that in any way undermines the essential positions put forth by Szasz that “mental illness” is a myth.

    And Mark, I would ask, are your suppositions that there really is bio-physiological evidence for “mental illness,” more of a HOPE on your part that someday someone will find them?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Yes, while there are a few minor examples of where some people on the Left have used the term “Libertarianism” to define their politics, OVERWHELMINGLY those who promote this ideology are PRO capitalist and worship individual rights OVER the collective whole.

    Just because some Nazis chose to occasionally use the term “National Socialism” as a descriptive term DOES NOT mean there is ANY association between socialism and fascism.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Chris

    You cannot get around the fact that psychiatry invented the term “Bipolar’ and went on to define its meaning within its oppressive paradigm of Disease/Drug based “treatment.”

    Let them completely own the term with all its contradictions of science and morality. Let them stutter and squirm when they attempt to explain their NONSENSE that can’t be proven OR justified. Let’s NOT engage in verbal gymnastics to somehow confuse this very important debate and area of contention.

    Chris, you said:
    “The diagnostic criteria for bipolar disorder is merely a set of symptoms; hopefully we agree on that. I am saying that these symptoms do not exist in pathology of the individual, but rather exist between an individual and systems.”

    Thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are somehow different or odd from the norm (but completely understandable human responses when the true circumstances for their emergence are understood) are NOT “symptoms.” This is their attempt to “medicalize” a normal response to abnormal conditions in the world, and/or pathologize necessary human conflict with one’s stressful and often oppressive environment.

    Chris, this is exactly another way of saying what you meant with your following words:

    “The extent to which people experience arousal, dissociation, agitation, elation, madness, etc.—in similar conditions—is an expression of diversity, driven by the demands of the conditions.”

    Using “Bipolar” to define the above conditions, ultimately allows the enemy to develop and define the language and terms of the discussion within their oppressive and corrupt Medical Model, and forces us into various forms of verbal gymnastics. This ends up allowing them to control the terms of the debate and overall battle. This is NOT a winning strategy here.

    Chris, the beauty of your narrative and the depth of your powerful analysis is undermined by the use of THEIR terminology. Please reconsider dropping their language and getting into a more complete “deconstruction” mode.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You said: ” Libertarian merely means placing a high value on liberty.”

    This is both very naive and very wrong.

    You CANNOT abstract Libertarianism from the current way in which the necessities of life in the world are both produced AND distributed throughout society.

    Libertarians worship at the alter of “Free” Market capitalism, and all that goes with this type of economic and political system. This includes the so-called Darwinian social concepts of the survival of the fittest and placing rugged individualism on a cultural pedestal.

    We should ALL know (especially you, Frank) what class in society this type of ideology and philosophy will end up serving. We can all see where this type of thinking has already taken us.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • It is amazing how some so-called learned people can write some pretty good scientific and political summations regarding the significance of someone like Thomas Szasz, AND THEN completely abandon logic and journalistic honesty with a few bogus concluding remarks.

    This author stated the following in his concluding remarks:

    “And the growing research on the pathophysiology of severe mental disorder paints a more complex picture than Szasz let on.”
    “Sixty years ago, Thomas Szasz did the profession—and the world—a great service by pointing out the gross abuses of power perpetrated in the name of psychiatric treatment…. But his claims regarding the nature of mental illness seem to be based on flawed logical and epistemological assumptions. They certainly seem to run counter to the clinical reality.”

    This author provided NO scientific or theoretical evidence to back up his claim of the “pathophysiology of severe mental disorders [sic]” or of the so-called “flawed logical and epistemological assumptions” of Thomas Szasz.

    Yes, Szasz’s “libertarianism” was flawed in many ways, because “libertarianism” is a flawed ideology, but his analysis of psychiatry and psychiatric oppression has essentially stood the test of time and any legitimate scientific analysis.

    Report comment

  • Chris

    This is a powerful blog filled with many insights about the multiple forms of trauma and personal difficulties of life in modern capitalist society. It is also a clear indictment of how this insane “mental health” system of psychiatric labeling and drugging is itself a form of trauma and only perpetuates a sick system.

    Your point about how this society promotes the “pathologizing of empathy” is so true and is very connected to the promotion of the capitalist view of human nature, that is, “dog eat dog, look out for number one” type of mentality. We can see how deadly this view of human nature has become.

    BUT this analysis does NOT go far enough, and remains stuck within the confines of the very paradigm it criticizes.

    There are many ways to be critical of the “Bipolar” label WITHOUT trying to “reclaim” it and/or “transform” its meaning. While one can understand why people might want to attempt this strategy of “appropriation,” it is ultimately a dead end that takes people down a “rabbit hole” of political and cultural contradiction.

    This is no different than the troubling history of Black people attempting to appropriate the “N” word, or women somehow trying to “reclaim” and/or “transform” the “B” word or the “C” word. This is NOT a revolutionary strategy, but one that ends up in some form of “reformism.”

    Chris, you said:

    “I see psychiatry as a necessary component to the problems we face, but the field must be transformed by empowered consumers, just as we now need science to undo the catastrophic blunders technology has brought about.”

    Again, Chris you are not going far enough in your analysis. Any true scientific analysis of psychiatry would revealed that there is NO basis for a so-called medical specialty that allegedly “treats” illnesses that do not exist. Psychiatry is based on pseudo-science and serves an oppressive role in society to shift attention towards “genetic theories of original sin” and AWAY from seeing the actual oppressive forms of trauma and inequality inherent in a class based capitalist society.

    And I would add that your choice of the phrase “empowered consumers” was both mistaken, and also an oxymoron. Anyone who “consumes” what psychiatry has to offer in our society can NEVER be “empowered.” We all must puke it up and spit it out, and the sooner the better.

    Chris, I hope you are open to some critical appraisal of your writing. You have a very important story to tell and I love many aspects of your writing and critical insights. I just believe it is vitally important to take things several more steps forward. We need a revolution, not some form critical reformism.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob and Kindredspirit

    Bob, great blog and further development of your critical scientific analysis of the overall harmful effects of psychiatric drugs throughout society. You have made a great case for the importance of NNT’s in analyzing the available data for the dangerous risks involved in the promotion and use of these mind altering drugs.

    Kindredspirit, you also raise some excellent points about how people in general are so willing to take risks (sometimes enormous risks) to get some perceived benefit from potentially dangerous drugs and/or some other gambling type activities in society.

    What has been left out of this discussion is how ALL of these important questions (of risk vs benefit) are both magnified, and their eventual course determined by a capitalist/profit based market place.

    Big Pharma (in collusion with psychiatry) is able to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to control the overall narrative while advertising and hyping the so-called benefits of these drugs, while downplaying the harmed caused. The counter narrative of forces such as MIA and other critics, is allowed to promote its counter perspective, but it is a mere tadpole swimming in a sea of sharks.

    Here the “Powers that Be,” that control the entire status quo, can say there is “free speech” and that the public has so-called “equal access” to a counter narrative, but we all know that the access to the “truth” is NOT on an equal playing field AND NEVER WILL BE as long as we live in a profit based capitalist system.

    Here it might be important to look at the history related to the FDA approval of the drug Vioxx (for arthritis and chronic pain) which was removed from the marketplace in 2004 due to dangerous side effects (or main effects) on the heart. It was determined that this drug probably caused anywhere between 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks with 30 to 40 percent of those resulting in death. The pharmaceutical company Merck & Co., who produced this billion dollar blockbuster drug, was guilty of hiding valuable data that actually revealed the dangerous potential of heart damage, but continued to market and sell the drug.

    Interestingly enough, in 2005 the FDA and Canada’s equivalent agency voted to allow this drug to once again be sold in the marketplace DESPITE these serious heart consequences. Merck has not pushed for this to happen because of the high number of lawsuits and settlements proving major harm done to high numbers of people.

    However, it has been rumored that Vioxx may soon once again appear in the marketplace because both Merck & Co and the FDA may argue that its benefits outweigh any of the major risks involved in its use, and they may find a way around having to pay any more for legal damages.

    AND it should be quite apparent that they, (Big Pharma and the other powerful medical institutions), have enormously powerful financial, legal, political, and advertising resources at their disposal. These institutional forms of power and control are clearly based in a profit based/capitalist system and are driven by a set of economic and political contigencies that we have virtually no control over.

    All of these same institutional forces mentioned above, ultimately control and govern the entire course of how ALL psychiatric drugs are both viewed and dealt with by millions of people around the world. We cannot make fundamental change in how all forms of psychiatric abuse are addressed in society without confronting the very nature of the economic and political system we all live within.

    It is clear that MIA and the entire worldwide backlash against the psychiatric drug “revolution” has a significant number of credentialed experts, along with a powerful number of credible published stories by psychiatric survivors, yet the number of drug prescriptions and psychiatric labeling increases by the day throughout the world. Incremental reform (while both noble and necessary) is NOT going to lead to any fundamental change when it comes to ending all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    Just as with the enormous level of cognitive and political dissonance between Trump & Co. and those who oppose his rule, this System, can and will, tolerate vastly different narratives in the “marketplace” of ideas and regarding the sale of certain commodities, as long as it DOES NOT threaten the fundamental nature of a profit based system and those that rule it.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Brett and Everyone

    I realize that I am way late to this discussion/debate. I found it very interesting and educational, and despite the fact that there was no clear resolution, it IS an important topic to be discussed.

    It is too late for me to go back into the main points, which were all covered quite thoroughly by many commenters. As with many discussions, we MUST continue to thrash them out (perhaps again and again) because the world needs solutions.

    Brett said the following (out of frustration and disappointment):

    ” I do not belong here, according to the culture of the comments section at MIA, and I’ve finally come to understand that. People who share my scientific values do not belong here. This helps to explain why MIA has made basically no inroads, and indeed has no chance of making inroads, in the world of non-biomedically-oriented “mental health” professionals who care about science, as long as the present culture remains intact.”

    Of course Brett belongs here and his presence has ALWAYS been positive and educational.

    However, his/your assessment that the “present culture” of the commenters at MIA IS the reason that more inroads have not been made influencing “biomedically-oriented “mental health” professionals,” CANNOT be supported by science or any other method of analysis.

    We must first look at who has “STATE POWER” in society and controls the media, educational system and all other significant institutions involved in the promotion and control of the current paradigm of so-called “treatment.” They spend billions of dollars YEARLY to carefully control public opinion and maintain the power and authority of psychiatry and their entire paradigm.

    This class based capitalist system needs psychiatry (and all that comes with it) to maintain its existence, and it WILL NOT give it up just because some minority group can now prove the harm that it causes.

    Again, there are BILLIONS being spent here, and it is of tremendous importance to those in power that psychiatry and its ” genetic theories of original sin” continue to be accepted widely throughout society and its legal and “scientific” authority sustained.

    I am not saying that the culture of the comment section at MIA has zero effect on its participants. But we must put all this in the perspective of what we are truly up against here, and what it will actually take to end all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    People participating in discussions at MIA SHOULD NOT EXPECT that a highly rational discussion will always lead to a resolution, and then be deflated or demoralized if they feel misunderstood or don’t reach the desired conclusion. This rarely happens in the comment section.

    Sometimes we must just finish our main arguments and then move on. In the mean time, there is growing chaos in the world and scientific and political struggle (of all kinds) breaking out all over the planet. Tomorrow will be a new day, with new conditions and opportunities for us to make trouble and possibly small inroads against those in power.

    Everyone get a good nights sleep and get ready to do battle in the new day.

    Carry on! Richard

    Report comment

  • Slaying The Dragon

    It was wrong of me to use caustic sarcasm to your above comment that literally equates psychiatry to the “Devil.” I apologize for the tone of that past moderated comment.

    The point to be made here is that by equating psychiatry to the “Devil” you end up totally abstracting psychiatry from the actual MATERIAL CONDITIONS in the world that gave rise to this profession, and NOW continues to sustain AND increase its power and control.

    Yes, psychiatry does evil things in the world, but it is not “pure evil” in the sense that it has always existed as in the myth of the existence of a “Devil.” Human beings are capable of doing terrible things, but in the best of environments they can be very cooperative and loving.

    For when you so narrowly focus on characterizing psychiatry as “evil” or the “Devil,” this lead us AWAY from finding the path to eliminating psychiatry and its oppressive paradigm of so-called treatment. This approach will NOT reduce the rise in suicide or end psychiatric oppression.

    Right now in the world, psychiatry (with its “genetic theories of original sin”) makes people focus on bad genes, brain diseases etc. and wants us all to NOT look at institutionalized forms of trauma and inequality in the world. This clearly serves the interests of the rich and powerful, that is the pharmaceutical industry and those who want to suppress dissent and other forms of rebellion.

    Just look at who are the most highly labeled and drugged segments of our society. In the past these segments of our society (minorities, women, prisoners and other system outliers etc.) were always the most rebellious and more willing to challenge the status quo.

    We all need to broaden our analysis of psychiatric oppression and get to the heart of where it comes from and how to uproot it from the actual material conditions in the REAL world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Slaying the Dragon

    Yes, it is correct to target the critical role of psychiatry in these deaths, but your emphasis on ONLY psychiatry obscures the central underlying message in this blog. In fact, in my view, your total focus on the surface phenomena of psychiatry tends toward leading people away from finding the solutions to the problems of suicide and human alienation.

    Psychiatry and their paradigm of so-called “treatment” exists in a certain environment (type of society) and we must ask (and answer) the following questions:

    1) How did psychiatry come to gain its pervasive power in our society over the past 4 decades, and whose class interests does it serve?

    2) What is the origin and ultimate source of this obsessive focus on INDIVIDUAL success and achievement in society (that is so alienating), and how does it connect to the nature of our economic and political system?

    3) AND what systemic economic, political, and cultural changes need to take place in society to reduce emotional trauma and alienation, and give people more of a reason to live and contribute to making the world a better place?

    And BTW Noel. a good and timely blog. I am deeply grieving the loss of Anthony Bourdain. In his own unique way, he was truly breaking down WALLS and revealing through his travels how most human beings on this planet want and need the same fundamental things in life.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “Though I didn’t make this clear, when I said “we” it was in reference to a specific project geared towards identifying aspects of psychiatric oppression which cross ideological boundaries.”

    Psychiatric oppression is pervasive throughout all of our society. ALL psychiatric oppression cuts across ideological boundaries.

    The key question here is: why would a revolutionary activist want to create ANY advanced political organization OF ANY KIND (including an anti-psychiatry organization) in this historical era, that was NOT clearly delineated as Left (anti-capitalist)???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “…we should be looking for is an anti-psych analysis which encompasses or transcends “traditional” left-right dialectics in a way adherents of otherwise conflicting philosophies can embrace.”

    There is NOTHING in the world today, including any type of liberating ideology, that can (or should attempt to) “transcend” left-right dialectics.”

    Oldhead, using your own prior definitions where “Left” is defined as “anti-capitalist” and NOT as “liberal democrat” etc., why would anyone seeking a better world want to escape the “dialectic” you describe above?

    This is especially true when a profit based capitalist system is THE major historical roadblock to the advance of human progress seeking an end to ALL forms of human exploitation and oppression.

    Psychiatry and today’s ‘mental health” system is intimately interwoven within the overall capitalist/imperialist framework. For you to somehow suggest that a current day liberation movement can develop a theoretical or organizational presence that “transcends the left-right dialectic” is a utopian dream at best, and as a strategy, it can only lead toward “reformism” and liberal compromise.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “Therefore, for MIA as a non-survivor led organization to be pushing a “mad studies” approach reflects its own perspectives, not those of any organized survivor movement, and the latter should not be implied.”

    I am sure that MIA like any organization, has different and sometimes conflicting ideologies and perspectives that are reflected in its public presentation. There IS clearly a representative current of psychiatric survivors at MIA who are involved in the overall workings of the webzine, and it IS very much reflected in the content of the blog articles and other postings.

    Since, as you say, there is no clearly defined organized anti-psychiatry movement or organization, what is so wrong with there being a “mad studies” course promoted on the website where these issues can be discussed?

    Doesn’t this type of educational series provide a forum for an anti-psychiatry position to be delineated, and for contending viewpoints to be debated?

    If some of us don’t like the fact that there is no defined anti-psychiatry theoretical and organized presence in the current political landscape, then let’s stop complaining and do something about it!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Emily

    Where we agree:

    NOT telling people that their different (from social norms) behaviors and emotional states are “bad” for them and others, and therefore must be “treated,” and

    NOT telling someone that their fatness is “bad” for them and they should make “healthier” choices in their life and/or be “treated” for this condition.

    Both of these situations (as currently addressed in today’s society) I described above come across as judgemental, shaming, and fit into a category of “blaming the person” for whatever problems and/or distress they may experience related to these states of being. Both harm people in extreme ways at times, and do not help them.

    And yes, capitalism has convinced us that there is a too broad of a definition of obesity (culturally imposed norms regarding both health and beauty standards), AND (as it will ALWAYS do) seeks to profit from the very problems and/or conditions they themselves have a direct role in creating.

    I often refer to their type of pseudo-scientific theories as so-called “genetic theories of original sin.” (As if these are inherent flaws in human nature, instead of representing major flaws in the way society is organized around ownership, production and distribution). This was a phrase coined by the famous sociologist, Ashley Montagu.

    Where we disagree:

    I believe there has been a significant rise in obesity/fatness over the past 60 years that, overall, has diminished the health of the broad masses of people. And I belief legitimate science can back this up.

    Yes, some heavy people are quite fit and meet many of these legitimate health standards. But when it comes to heart health and overall effects on joints etc., many overweight people fall short of healthy standards and will suffer negative effects from this, in both the short and long term. Most people already know this to be true.

    BTW, my having said the above statement, does NOT mean it is okay to go around shaming people or telling them they are unhealthy. Here we are talking about general trends in society, that frankly the “Powers That Be” do NOT want people knowing the actual origins of these kind of societal problems. (see below)

    This is directly related to the “for profit” capitalist food industry producing and advertising foods with higher and higher levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fats. All this is combined with higher stress levels related to other forms of alienation and trauma within a class based society.This has all been done, similar to the cigarette industry, knowing that these ingredients have addictive qualities to the human brain and body, similar to other addictive drugs in society, and that people will be “forced” to continue using them at higher and higher levels over time.

    So here I am making the point that there is, and needs to be, a QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT approach to addressing (OR NOT ADDRESSING) these issues when dealing with people who might be labeled as “obese” and or “fat,” AND when we start discussing these issues as broader questions confronting society as a whole. This is ESPECIALLY true when we start talking about issues of “blame” and “responsibility” in society for the existence of these sorts of problems, and for how we might find solutions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To All

    I would hope that people would respond to my above point about trends in the for profit food industry over the past half century.

    Where I might disagree with the authors, is whether or not we should talk about obesity as a general social phenomena in late stage capitalism. I think having these discussions is fundamentally different than “fat shaming” and “sizeism” that gets directed towards INDIVIDUALS.

    This trend in higher rates of obesity is reflective of increased stress and oppression in society, and is not an overall healthy trend for both physical and psychological reasons for the broad masses of people..

    Here I am talking about addressing these issues of food production and advertising on an institutional and systemic level. People must be made aware that the “for profit” capitalist system DOES NOT have their best interests at heart (in a million ways) when it comes to promoting so-called healthy lifestyles.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “Also is it perhaps worth pointing out that “shaming” is impossible if you don’t give a shit what someone thinks of you?”

    The reality is that we are all SOCIAL human beings who need and require positive social interaction with others. And people can CLAIM that they don’t give a shit, but THEY DO! Shaming matters, and must be opposed as the authors have so eloquently advocated.

    Here I am talking about caring what people think from social groups we are attracted to and/or tend to hang out with. Of course I don’t really care if the far Right Wing dislikes me, and if they don’t dislike me, then I am probably not doing my job as a moral and justice seeking human being making my voice heard.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Gabi taylor

    You said: “a person who is consumed with pain and indignant and injustice, and then drowns the feelings in a doughnut is less likely to go out and right the world, than someone who acknowledges the pain and uses it as a motivator to action. Would you not agree?”

    No gabi, I agree with very little of what you are saying in this thread. And since you have missed the total essence of the blog I would hesitate to even validate any of your secondary points here.

    And BTW, there are many people here at MIA, and out there in the real world, who would “down the doughnut” and then march out in the street, or write a kick ass blog, that takes on this oppressive system, especially the oppression of women.

    And gabi, while you may not be eating the doughnuts, you have clearly imbibed a heavy dose of this sytem’s Kool Aid way of looking at the world. And when people point this out to you, you only tend to “double down” on these backward beliefs.

    And as I remember in a previous blog discussion you definitely steered clear of the “feminist ” label, AND clearly showed your lack of understanding of women’s oppression by opposing women’s right to control their own bodies and their reproductive rights, with your anti abortion stance.

    It is now clearer to me why you would also not understand women’s oppression as it pertains to “sizeism.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “outlawing it [prostitution] absent the current exploitative milieu would be extreme I think, and partly grounded not in economics but in puritanism.”

    Prostitution ALWAYS takes place in an “exploitative milieu.” It has always been one of the major pillars of historical patriarchy in human history.

    Oldhead, my position on ending prostitution has absolutely nothing to do with “puritanism,” and everything to do with ending capitalist oppression and creating a truly classless society where all forms of human exploitation, AND the material conditions in the world that gives rise to that oppression, are totally eliminated from human society.

    And I am still waiting for Emily, or anyone else to somehow defend the statement that prostitution is “empowering” for some women.

    I am sure that Kitty Dukakis would say that Electro-Shock was “empowering” for her. The fact that she said that, and/or believes that to be true, does not make it so.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sarah

    Your disdain for making a principle out of “laws” is only understood for me when you look at the sham democracy we have in this country. The biggest joke of all is that, in theory, there are suppose to be laws against “monopolies” in this capitalist system. And the reality we face today is that economic and political power is more and more consecrated in the hands of a tiny elite.

    HOWEVER, laws in a truly socialist society will mean something totally different after such a revolution takes place, AND they will represent an historical achievement that involved enormous struggle and sacrifices by millions of people. And yes, after a revolution it will still take enormous struggle to maintain the viability of the new laws in order to advance towards a truly classless world.

    But new revolutionary laws will be absolutely necessary as a way to codify our achievements and set new standards of acceptable behavior until human nature advances to the point where cooperative forms of behavior become a more natural part of human nature.

    If we reach a point in history where there ARE laws that outlaw all forms of human exploitation, this would be a great thing, and represent a very important step in human progress.

    And you are to be commended for getting out of the law profession. I am reminded of the Al Pacino movie “And Justice for All” which is a true exposure of so-called American justice and the crazy making aspects of working in that profession.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Yes, Sarah, all very good points.

    And just as Emily made the point that maybe there could be a seemingly unconscious desire on the part of fat people to take up more space as a form of “in your face” to those who promote the “thin is good and beautiful,” there ALSO can be an opposite form of these tendencies as well.

    For example, I have heard people who work in this field theorize that anorexia can represent a desire to “disappear” by getting smaller and smaller. And also, as a way to remove any outward signs of female sexuality (smaller hips and no breasts) to avoid being viewed or pursued as a sexual object in our society.

    The same could be said for fat women, who are also removing the more overt physical forms of sexuality, as a way to avoid conforming to cultural standards of “beauty” and as a way to avoid being approached as a sexual object in our society.

    All of this is such a sad commentary regarding the high rates of sexual abuse and trauma in our society, and what people are forced to do consciously, or unconsciously, as a way to cope with this madness and the related cultural norms regarding the treatment of women.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • gabi taylor

    You seem to be venturing into some sort of version of “positive psychology,” where perhaps you believe all people can and should find a way to “happiness” in this world, IF they just make the right choices (or think the right way) in life. This new trend and form of therapy actually does great harm to people who have very good reasons (suffering from real oppression) feeling depressed or being socially and psychologically detached from the world in some way.

    Depression, “psychosis,” manic behavior, fatness etc. etc. – they all represent a form of social protest, and they serve as a major public indication that we live in a very oppressive world. These forms of protest are not necessarily consciously carried out or planned, but they are a form of protest never the less. Some people may live their entire life in this state of being. Should they be made to feel shamed or somehow responsible for maintaining this form of coping mechanism within a difficult world?

    The first three examples I gave might, at times, preclude a person from engaging in actual more conscious forms of protest due to their debilitating effects. Someone who is overweight, according to socially acceptable standards (or even medical standards that calls them obese), can still become an active participant in any, and all, forms of organized protest to confront all forms of oppression and seek systemic changes in the world.

    I am going to stop telling (or judging) people (including my own grown children) that they could make better choices in their life regarding food and exercise. They have already been judged as “less than” in this world, and I don’t want to, in any way, contribute more to their oppression.

    People can be decent loving human beings AND full participants in revolutionary change regardless of their size. When a true Revolution occurs in this world, we will then be fully free to explore (without the profit motive corrupting science and everything else) what it means to be “healthy.” And when all oppressive institutions are torn down then (and only then) will people be truly free to make fully informed and non-pressured choices that will benefit both them and their community in a better way.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • gabi taylor

    You have totally missed the main points in this blog and have now resorted to giving “advice” to the authors, and to some commenters, about how they could be “happier” and “healthier” in their lives. This really ends up shaming them for their past choices and/or future choices, and it fails to understand the essence of “sizeism” and “sanism.”.

    The bottom line is that we live in a very oppressive society that “others” and “isolates” all those who have developed all types of socially unacceptable coping mechanisms to manage and survive in this extremely oppressive and insane world. Both “sizeism and “sanism” are just two forms of oppression in this sick society that ends up “blaming the victims.”

    My earlier points (and more recent comments) are not meant, in any way, to undercut the main essence of this blog. I do have some problems with a much more secondary current in this blog that tends towards a form of
    “hyper-individualism” and “Libertarianism.”

    I totally agree with Katethewolf’s comment:

    “Sunsets are nice, justice would be better.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Emily

    You said: “I am a staunch abolitionist of paternalism.”

    Does this mean that any new revolutionary societies that come into being in the future should NOT have any laws that outlaw human exploitative behaviors?

    Yes, I know that it will be a difficult process to determine exactly what are all the “exploitative” practices by which one individual or group exploits another. But is it not possible for human beings to ultimately figure this out, AND don’t we now have more than enough evidence when it comes to examining the nature of ECT, Conversion Therapy, and prostitution?

    Emily, I agree that suicide should be legal in ANY society, and I would fight for that right.

    You said: “I also think that the criminalization of sex work only leads to more exploitation and violence…”

    Yes, IN THIS SOCIETY, the criminalization of prostitution does end up coming down heavily on the women engaged in this practice. My reference to outlawing the practice of prostitution was in a REVOLUTIONARY society. And here as I’ve stated, great efforts would be made to aid all the women and men who were previously forced (or driven) into this practice.

    You said: “I know many sex workers who find this job empowering.”

    Any in depth examination of prostitution would reveal that the vast majority (if not 90% or more) of the women engaged in prostitution were victims of some forms of sexual abuse and/or other trauma in their life. It would also reveal that the “choice” to be a prostitute was driven by the experiences of both economic violence and other severe forms of emotional violence (many of which you [Emily] have revealed in your writings at MIA) from their position as oppressed women within a patriarchal society.

    I would also say that selling one’s body as a commodity, to be used and objectified by a man, does not really fit any historically moral and just definition of the word “empowering.”

    And as to your upholding the legalization of Electro-Shock, Emily, is their really such a thing as “Informed Consent” when people (mainly women) allegedly “choose” to have ECT in today’s world???

    As I stated in a prior comment, some of these political positions contested here are falling into some type of “Libertarianism” and “Individualism” that divorces human behavior from any moral standard and political compass that we can ultimately judge what is “exploitative” and “oppressive” in society.

    Without such a moral and political compass, we will be prevented from making the kinds of changes in the world to eventually eliminate all forms of human exploitation and oppression once and for all. I am NOT suggesting that the path to obtaining this “moral and political compass” will be easy, but it is POSSIBLE!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Emily

    I have tremendous respect for your writing here, but I think you should definitely reconsider the following comment related to conversion therapy:

    ” I said it should be legal, if freely chosen (I definitely don’t think it should be legal for parents to coerce their kids into it, for example). At the end of the day, WHAT EVER HAPPENS [my emphasis] between two consenting adults is none of my business and certainly not the state’s.”

    In the current status quo, we live in a very oppressive and exploitative capitalist/imperialist “state.” By “state” I am referring to the government and institutions that corresponds to this form of economic and political system.

    Yes, living in the CURRENT oppressive “state” we should question every, and all, intrusions into people’s lives and the laws that govern people’s behaviors. We should have no confidence that their laws are in place for our benefit.

    But your above view that “anything goes” if it’s between “two consenting adults” is very problematic. Your falling into some type of “Libertarianism” that divorces human behavior from any moral standard and compass that can ultimately judge what is “exploitative” and “oppressive” in society.

    Of course you know that the term “consenting” is extremely problematic as well. Should we NOT outlaw Electro-Shock, if it’s between so-called “consenting” adults.

    And to pose another provocative question to you: suppose we have a socialist revolution in this country. Do you think it would be wrong for the new “state” (which is now based on non-exploitative institutional structures) to outlaw prostitution.

    Prostitution is clearly the ultimate personification of objectifying and commodifying women in society, and a fundamental pillar of historical patriarchy.

    Any just and moral NEW society would definitely, as a beginning step, outlaw prostitution, while making every effort to provide emotional support, housing and monetary support for those women who were previously forced into this form of behavior. And it would criminalize those men who were found continuing to pursue women for this practice.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I would add to your point by talking about the evolution of food production and standards in America, especially over the past 60 years.

    It is very clear that the American food industry (to raise their profit levels) very consciously became aware of the addictive nature of producing food with higher levels of salt, sugar, and saturated fats. These food substances very clearly access the hedonic pathways in human brain chemistry, very similar to a brain and behavior process that occurs with other more commonly used addictive drugs.

    It is no accident that millions of people on the planet are attracted to these foods and obtain some level of comfort in consuming them. Just one more reason why capitalism must be eliminated to advance human evolution through Revolution.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Emily and Sarah

    Thank you so much for this very educational and extremely challenging blog. I say, “challenging,” because of all the kinds of prejudices in our sick society this is the one (if I am willing to be honest) that I struggle with the most.

    Having been a radical political activist since the 1960’s I try to be a critical thinker about all forms of oppression and seek to take the most advanced political and morally correct stand that I possibly can, and then act accordingly.

    You both have deepened my understanding about this form of oppression (from your personal and political perspectives) and it has definitely changed my thinking, and I hope it will manifest itself in my future behavior.

    Now to my questions and concerns. Emily, you write very passionately about your own aspects of “thin privilege” and “fat phobia” throughout your life and how this has caused a great deal of anxiety and pressure in life. I am sure this whole issue can be quite different for women in this society (where the women’s body is “objectified”) and the resulting related trauma is so much higher than it is for most men.

    For me the issue of “fat phobia” and health standards “divides into two.” Yes, I have been deeply affected by our culture and all the pressures and the standards of beauty. However, at some point in our life we each develop our own sense of personal identity (and it is always in flux) that, yes, is shaped by these cultural norms, but also has its own individual character that we may grow comfortable with in both our mind and body. And it may end up conforming to how we, as an individual, define what it means to be “healthy.”

    For me, being athletic from a young age and desiring a goal of physical fitness became something that made me feel good about myself in my own body. That is, a sense of physical awareness about the various muscle groups and a positive feeling from the sense of muscle contractions (through weight training type exercises) and a sense of muscle tone and aerobic conditioning from the sports I was playing. In fact, I would say that my involvement in sports in high school may have been one important thing that shielded me from some of the negative effects of all the other kinds of pressures that push many youth over the edge during this very vulnerable part of their life.

    And as to the way some people maintain a certain weight standard that might be labeled “thin” or “normal.” For some people like myself this may evolve (over many years) into some type of internal body “set point” that allows a person to stay at the same “lower” weight. I am now 70 years old and only 10 pounds heavier than my high school weight. Of course, I am flabbier and more wrinkly in appearance, but still have the overall sense of body awareness (that I had as a youth) in regards to the weight I feel most comfortable with and the one fits my sense of personal identity.

    I believe this point I am making about my “set point” and sense of body awareness can overall manifest itself in eating behaviors that tend to offset each other. For example, If I overeat or over indulge in certain foods on one day I subconsciously tend to back off the next day as a way of maintaining this “set point.” This is NOT a process of self shaming or berating myself about so-called bad behaviors the prior day, it just happens (a behavior pattern that has evolved over 70 years) to allow me to sustain the “set point” of weight that I feel most comfortable with and that corresponds to my self identity.

    I do NOT separate all this from cultural norms and societal influences, but neither do I choose to call myself primarily “fat phobic” because these thoughts and behaviors (about food and exercise) have evolved in my life and help keep me aligned to those standards that I value as “healthy.”

    When humanity reaches a stage in history when there is no class oppression and all the other forms of trauma and human degradation are eliminated (a stage of history well beyond a profit based/capitalist system), I do believe human beings will evolve to a point where we will both understand what “healthy” standards are (for eating and exercise behaviors), AND most importantly, EVERY ONE will have the freedom to access those standards.

    And while there will be a multitude of personal differences in the categories of size and eating behaviors, there will NOT exist the types of behavioral and emotional extremes that pervades our current society and that bring with them all the related forms of oppression and human degradation.

    What does it say about American capitalist society (the richest and most powerful country on the planet with overall less than 5% of the world’s population) that it concentrates the highest rates of people labeled as “obese” and the highest rates of people labeled as “anorexic.”???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    I cannot believe you stand by these statements:

    “I am indifferent to consensual psychiatry.”

    “Psychiatry is not the problem.”

    You say you are against “non-consensual psychiatry” because it takes away people’s rights and harms and oppresses people, but you are “indifferent to consensual psychiatry” and do not believe it is “the problem.”

    What if I could prove to you that “consensual psychiatry” throughout the entire world actually causes overall (in terms of numbers and degree of harm to human beings) FAR MORE harm and FAR MORE damage than “coercive psychiatry”? Then what would you have to say to justify such twisted logic where you are “indifferent” to “consensual psychiatry.”

    Of course, “coercive psychiatry” cause enormous harm; this is well documented. However, it is safe to say that exponentially FAR MORE people worldwide are exposed to “non-coercive psychiatry,” and it also WELL DOCUMENTED how much harm this causes to human beings.

    Frank, you are correct to say that merely abolishing psychiatry will not stop the harm perpetrated by this oppressive “mental health” system. And yes, the power structure running this profit based capitalist system would find other ways to carry out all the labeling, drugging, and incarcerating of people.

    I do get where you are coming from on that part of your position, but to make the other statement I’ve highlighted above defies all moral and political logic.

    As you know from my prior blogs and comments, I do not believe it is possible to eliminate either “consensual” or “non-consensual” psychiatry under the current capitalist/imperialist system.

    Psychiatry’s power and control of dissident sections of the population, along with the enormous profit margins of Big Pharma, makes the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex now an indispensable component of the entire System. Each is now interdependent on the other’s existence and their future together are permanently linked.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thanks for writing your story.

    Another blog documenting the horrible “treatment” by psychiatry and mainstream medicine when it comes to DSM labels and the subsequent psychiatric drugging of people.

    The author only answered the first part of the question as to why there is almost total ignorance in medicine when it comes to benzos. Her answer was “a lack of education.” True, but a more important question to ask AND answer is : WHY is there a lack of education???

    Here we have to examine the entire corrupt history for the FDA approval of benzos that involves collusion, of a criminal nature, by psychiatry (APA) and Big Pharma. The author of this blog needs to read the books of Robert Whitaker and Peter Breggin. These books document a history revealing that the above mentioned institutions have all kinds of economic (profit levels) and political (power and control) reasons to keep people in the dark about the harm done by benzos, including the horrible withdrawal symptoms.

    If the entire history of the worldwide benzo disaster were revealed, it would be the one of the biggest medical scandals in the last 100 years.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • So McB18 wishes to self identify as a “troll” (what does that say about one’s character), and somehow believes they have won [buried their opponent] in an argument, or ended a discussion, with a half baked analysis that is essentially dismissive of a true class analysis of society and its problems.

    I have responded with two major comments above that reveal the significant weaknesses in your position.

    What happened to your shovel, McB18?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • McB18

    And to add to my above comment, while you have added depth and passion to the argument that ALL children (cutting across class lines in capitalist society) can and will often suffer various forms of abuse, sometimes very horrible forms of abuse, your overemphasis on this point does, in fact, tend to negate a true class analysis.

    Children are NOT going to lead a Revolution to transform an oppressive profit based /class system of oppression. Nor is the issue of family oppression and child abuse going to be a DECISIVE dividing line question (like racial, women’s, and anti-war struggles etc.) leading to critical forms of mass struggle challenging the overall system.

    I say this NOT to diminish, in any way, its [child abuse] importance in the overall scheme of things and in understanding other forms of exploitation in our society.

    But I do say this to highlight a class analysis and a more accurate view of what MAJOR sources of resistance are likely to arise in the coming years that will fundamentally challenge this system to its core..

    Yes, FORMER CHILDREN, will lead the Revolution, and all politically active people coming to terms with ALL the various forms of oppression in capitalist society, will come to the conclusion that the entire System, including those things wrong within the nuclear family, is rotten to its core and needs to be replaced with a NEW form of socialism.

    It is this fundamental transformation in society that will end the nuclear family, and all its own forms of oppression, and bring into being NEW forms of institutions and social arrangements in society that can end exploitation (over many generations) forever.

    And those FORMER children in particular, especially those coming from the upper classes, will have to ideologically and politically BETRAY their own class interests and privileges, in order to play a true revolutionary role in transforming society in a thorough going way.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • McB18

    You said to Uprising: “Are you just not paying attention to what’s being said here, OR DO YOU DRINK HEAVILY [my emphasis] while writing your comments?”

    How was this not anything but a flip personal attack meant to instigate and/or bate an emotional reaction, and the exact opposite of promoting civil dialogue?

    You said: “While I’m sure Richard Lewis would wholeheartedly agree with my position in theory, I detect a real emphasis on his part on societal sources of oppression (capitalism, for example) over oppression within the family, much less any real discussion of the universal risks of being a child. I could go through his piece and pull out statements to support this if you like.”

    Yes, please go through my comments and pick out where I have denied child abuse.

    Uprising is correct in saying that oppression in the family IS very much connected to overall oppression in society. And certainly my emphasis in singling out the need to end “patriarchy” (as part of the struggle to end capitalism and all forms of class oppression) which very much includes the oppression of children, was a legitimate response to many of the past points you were making.

    McB18, your repeated negative remarks about leftists and those upholding a “class analysis” of society, make me wonder if you truly accept that a “class analysis” matters when trying to transform society into a more humane era.

    I would ask you the following questions:

    Which class in society (in terms of its interests and material position as a class) is in the best position, if able to seize power, to end all forms of oppression, including patriarchy and all forms of child abuse?

    And what form of economic and political system provides the best (and only) opportunity to truly end ALL forms of exploitation and oppression in society?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Laura

    Congratulations on the successful launch of the ICI internet support system and educational website. And glad to see your internet writing presence so prominently displayed again.

    The growth and success of ICI will surely strengthen our movement to end all forms of psychiatric abuse and advance the cause of all human rights struggles.

    Carry on! Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I am “diverting” nothing here. I am responding to a major attack (by gabi taylor) on women’s rights which is a significant part of the current Right Wing agenda.

    Oldhead, since when do you start calling a defense of an important dividing line question for women’s rights in the world today a, {“diversion.”}???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • phoenix

    I believe “moving on” means finding a way to reprocess past events in a safe and supportive way.

    There is new evidence that one’s memory is very malleable and undergoes a transformation each time a person revisits past trauma events. So instead of someone expending a great deal of energy trying to run from, forget, and/or numb out these past events, the person can actually begin to use adult/rational thinking to review the nature of these events from some place of emotional distance.

    EMDR is one such approach that helps people revisit past troubling events to help sort out issues of shame and guilt and become clearer about those people and institutions ultimately responsible for creating the trauma.

    Once someone begins, through this reprocessing, to doubt and/or question the earlier decisions they made as a child (and sometimes as an adult) about the sequence of events and thought patterns that led them to believe they were “bad,” then healing and “moving on” has a chance to progress forward.

    In this case “forgiving” may be more like “cancelling the debt you think your owed” and getting on with one’s life.

    This could include grasping the understanding that these past troubling experiences, while certainly horrible, actually created conditions for the person to turn these life challenges into transforming themselves into a more compassionate person who understands, in a deeper way, the human condition and the need revolutionary change in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • phoenix

    Thanks for the positive feedback on my first blog.

    I will add this point about the trauma/forgiveness question. While the actual act of forgiveness may never occur for various reasons, it is important for people to work toward finding a way to move beyond their past traumatic experiences. This does NOT mean forgetting, but trying to find ways to not be stuck in anger or revenge type thinking. And anger can often be channeled into some type of constructive activity or cause that is working to help eliminate forms of abuse and make the world a better place.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Fiachra

    You might want to read up on the history of the use of the terminology surrounding the battle over defending the right of women to have an abortion. Their insistence on the use of word “baby” (to describe a fetus) is very important to all those trying to deny women control of their reproductive rights.

    In fact, I would equate its political significance to those who are very invested in calling psychiatric drugs, “medications.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • gabi taylor

    You say you are not Right Wing but you are promoting one of their most important political positions – the subjugation of women.

    You certainly can’t call yourself a feminist since you advocate for women NOT having any control over their bodies or reproductive rights, which is absolutely fundamental to feminism or support for the equality of women.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Someone Else

    You raise some important points.

    What about this quote from “Psychiatric Times”?

    “Burdening pharmaceutical companies to conduct such research before granting them license to sell would certainly slow down the development of many new and helpful medications.”

    Given the millions of people HARMED by these drugs, this statement sums up in a powerful way the truly criminal nature of Big Pharma and Psychiatry and those apologists who wish to cover up their crimes.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve and LavenderSage

    Thank you for those necessary comments. While this blog has many strengths it also has some glaring weaknesses, some of which which you have correctly critiqued.

    The author of this blog tended to demonize depression by abstracting it from the real life experiences in the world that bring it on. He also made no distinction between the more milder experiences of depression and the severe forms of the experience. ALL experiences of depression by women are often routinely “treated” with mind altering (and cellular altering) drugs after a 5 minute discussion with a doctor and/or psychiatrist.

    AND I will repeat a criticism I have made of this author”s previous blogs when he continues to alternate between using the word “baby” and “fetus” to describe a developing fetus.

    This misuse of language is very contentious and politically volatile in a world that is increasingly restricting the rights of women to control their bodies and reproductive rights. Right Wing forces in society, of course, want the word “baby” to be used to describe a developing fetus so as to claim a “murder” has been committed when a women makes a righteous choice to end a pregnancy due to its enormous impact on the trajectory of their life.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • McB18

    I hear your intense anger towards those responsible for your’s and all other children’s trauma and neglect. Anger can become a force channeled for major political change. Cynicism becomes a deadend.

    Since you seem to almost mock those of us who seek major systemic change as an important first step in reshaping the world, I would like to hear what solutions you would propose for political activists in today’s world.

    Exploitation and oppression is inherent and endemic to capitalism at its very core. Workers must SELL their labor power to the highest bidding capitalist. Economic crises are a periodic inevitability in this system leading to layoffs and recessions and/or depressions. War (one of the highest forms of trauma and death) is an an inevitable product of the competing Imperialist powers fighting over spheres of influence in the world.

    This system creates and encourages divisions between races, men and women, and other minorities and system outliers. Children also have no respected voice and are subjected multiple forms of exploitation that often have some form of profit at the origin of the various forms of trauma. Just look at the labeling and drugging that is occurring among young people subjected to Psychiatry’s and Big Pharma’s Medical Model.

    So I definitely think major systemic change is necessary AND good place to big focusing our attention for social and political change.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • McB18

    Yes, patriarchy and other forms of traumatic experiences that affect all children and young people is endemic to capitalist society and cuts across class lines. And when i use the word patriarchy, I believe it covers both the oppression of women AND children, and penetrates all classes, although the oppression is far greater and pervasive within the under classes.

    While patriarchy and poor treatment of children has existed in socialist experiments, it is more a part of the birthmarks remaining from the previously existing class societies. Socialism and communism provide the material basis (if the necessary political struggle is carried out over many generations) to ultimately eliminate patriarchy and the oppression of children once and for all.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • McB18

    Yes again to what Steve said. You must read more of the blogs here at MIA. I am squarely on the nurture side of things. After billions of dollars of research they have found NO biological markers for what gets labeled as “mental illness” diagnoses.

    My blogs (over a dozen) and comments at MIA have always discussed and pointed out the daily traumas and neglect that exists in this society. Classism (with its poverty), patriarchy (which oppresses both women and children), racism, homophobia etc. are all endemic to this system and add the kind of stress that leads to severe psychological distress.

    Check out my very first blog at MIA 5 years ago: https://www.madinamerica.com/2012/09/addiction-biological-psychiatry-and-the-disease-model-part-1/

    Here I lay out very clearly the source of all this pain and sadness and criticize all the Systems’s “genetic theories of original sin.” And I discuss very clearly a better way to understand addiction and so-called symptoms of “mental illness.”

    All the best. I am glad you are reading here and challenging us regarding the content of our writing.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    My belief is that if this word becomes accepted and more commonly used in these discussions that it would be a set back for our movement. This is why I have made a big deal out of the misuse of this term.

    There are many attacks going on against science in this world and I believe this is one of the less obvious and more subtle ways people undermine the belief in legitimate science.

    Dr. Timimi could have written all of his recent blogs without ever using this term and still made all of his political points very clear to everyone. We should ask WHY does he insist on using this term even in all the titles of his blogs as well as some subtitles and within the text?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve,

    You were supporting the phrase: “…autism is not a scientific term because it’s not definable…”

    Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that “autism” or its related phenomena “is not YET definable?”

    We may just not know enough about this phenomena or have the science and/or knowledge to describe what is going on here. There is so much we don’t know about how human beings and the human brain is affected by the environment and its related culture.

    I think we are both in agreement that all the so-called “treatment” for these labels is in most cases harmful and not advancing our understanding of how to help ALL people make progress in life.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    There is a much better term than “scientism” to describe people who blindly follow anything that has an alleged scientific label or credential behind it, and that is “BLIND FAITH.” These are people who don’t understand science, or know how to correctly use the scientific method. This is all closely very related to the phenomena of “blind faith” in authority. which we know is very dangerous in these times.

    I would also say that the terms such as “dogmatism,” pragmatism,” “reductionism,” and “mechanical materialism” are also useful terms to criticize poeple who distort the scientific method by using incomplete methodology, narrow interpretations, shortterm gathering of data, and the isololating of phenomena and components from their intrinsic whole. These are just a few of the distortions of the scientific method.
    The term “scientism” does nothing but sow confusion whem trying to correctly criticize psychiatry and the medical model, AND may actually lead to diminishing people’s belief in the importntance of genuine science.

    It is both funny and ironic that everyone here (including the author Dr. Timimi) who is criticizing the autism diagnosis (and promoting the use of the term “scientism) is actually using SCIENCE AND THEIR UNDESTANDING OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD to deconstruct what is wrong with those who are promoting the “autistism” and “Aspergers'” diagnosis. Friends, you can’t have it both ways.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Neil

    Thanks for that response. I notice in that definition you provided they use the word “faith,” which is ironically in major contradiction to the scientific method. It once again shows how confusing this term really is.

    And while you provided this confusing definition you ,as well, have offered no valid justification for using this term.

    Exposing and critiquing what is wrong with psychiatry and the medical Model is difficult enough without using controversial and nonsensical terms.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To All

    ONCE AGAIN, Sami Timimi ruins a potentially good blog on the pseudo-science related to the Autism diagnosis by continuing to use the nonsensical term “SCIENTISM.”

    He even has a subtitle, “Scientism Defines What Autism Is,” but NOWHERE” does he EVER really provide a workable definition of “scientism” that makes any sense. He is guilty of the very same criticism he makes of those that claim there is somehow legitimate science or a legitimate definition backing up the autism diagnosis.

    Dr.Timimi says the following in his first paragraph:

    “I am aware that some think my use of the term ‘scientism’ as opposed to, say, ‘pseudoscience’ or ‘corrupt science’ is a mistake. I think scientism is a more useful term as it can cover many aspects: It can refer to an over-emphasis on the use of scientific knowledge and techniques, but can also refer to the corruption of science.”

    Here he just makes up his own justification for why this term has some apparent meaning without providing ANY scientific evidence that it has ANY useful purpose or ANY clearly agreed upon acceptance within the scientific community.

    First, he continually shows how the pro autism crowd has NO definitive or useful science to back up their diagnosis, so I ask how is this an example of “… an over-emphasis on the use of scientific knowledge and techniques…” which Dr. Timimi claims is an example of “scientism.”???

    There are a dozen other words such as “pseudo-science,” “corrupt,” “unverifiable,” “half-baked,”etc. etc. that have far more useful meaning when criticizing the lack of a legitimate scientific model for describing autism.

    Once again I will say the following, any web search on the the meaning of “scientism” will provide MULTIPLE meanings of the term and hugely contested debates from all types of scientists and philosophers and other academics. There is NO accepted meaning OR agreement that this term has any validity.

    I will remind people that the term “scientism” is MORE often used by those who want to UNDERMINE the role of science in the world (including by Right Wing global warming deniers) and those that are particularly upset that almost all scientists challenge the fundamental basis of religious belief systems. Dr. Timimi’s insistence on using this term, without ANY clear definition, or useful purpose, makes me wonder if he is part of those academics who resent scientists (and the scientific method) from entering into theological discussions.

    Now on the issue of autism, I am not prepared to say that autism can ONLY be defined in a “cultural” sense as Dr. Timimi has implied. Until MORE LEGITIMATE SCIENCE is developed, I believe that we’d have to say it is most likely a combination of environmental and genetic factors. It is correct to be very critical of how the Medical Model has made a entire profitable industry of the autism diagnosis, and yes, millions of these children and adults are heavily drugged with mind altering chemicals.

    And I hope that in this blog, Dr. Timimi will actually participate in the discussion that he has provoked with such a controversial topic.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    My “allowed to fail” point is stressing that this system needs psychiatry and will only tolerate resistance to this “mental health” system up to a certain point. Neither psychiatry or the “mental health” system can be eliminated or dismantled as long as a profit based system with a capitalist class is running the show. The same would apply to those people who want to break up the big banks etc.

    My use of the phrase “alternative support systems” is only stressing that there is much value to those people working to find ways to help people in psychological stress while still living within an oppressive status quo. I think you know that I view psychiatry as being without redemption and/or providing people with nothing other than more distress and harm.

    You said: “More realistic than what?” to my following sentence:
    “But at least this strategic approach represents a more realistic and truer picture of what we are actually up against”

    “More realistic” than those who believe we can reform the “mental health” system and/or eliminate it within a capitalist/profit based system. Again, the future of psychiatry and the Medical Model is inseparably bound to the future of the entire capitalist system. And of course you cannot reform something that is harmful to the core and promotes a belief that there is something called “mental illness.”

    You said: “The last few points sound a little more idealistic and abstract than the others.”

    Are you saying that revolution is “abstract” and an “idealistic” dream, or that it is impossible to link the struggle against psychiatry with other human rights struggles against oppression within the capitalist system?

    The fact that most advanced revolutionary groups on the Left do not currently understand our movement (against psychiatry and the Medical Model) should not deter us in the least in pressing forward with advanced demands and organized resistance against this system. It is precisely this kind of activity that will force all revolutionary minded people to pay attention and take careful notice of the important significance of our movement. We have a dual task here in not only educating the broad masses about the overall illegitimacy and oppressive nature of psychiatry, but also educating the “Left” as we press forward.

    I believe that the movement for LGBTQ/gay rights faced the same kind of resistance, that is, a history of homophobia and ignorance within past socialist/communist movements. So this is nothing new, and we can say that the LGBTQ movement has forced the “Left” to seek a more advanced perspective on human sexuality and the importance of these human rights struggles.

    Certainly we should NOT let this pervasive ignorance in the “Left” stop us from seeing the importance of having an “anti-system” perspective in ALL our organizational formations when taking on psychiatry and the Medical Model.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    I would avoid using the words “crony capitalism.” It is a frequently used term by the “Right Wing” to obscure the true nature of capitalism.

    They want people to believe that somehow there is a “pure” form of capitalism that is fair and humane. The capitalist “law of value” necessitates the inevitable formation of monopolies and the consolidation of power and wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller elite.

    It also necessitates international competition that leads to inevitable wars for control of markets and natural resources.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bradford

    You said: “…“capitalism” certainly *allows*, even “facilitates” the authoritarian excesses you decry. But it does NOT *require* them.”

    Fifty years ago that may have been true, but times have changed, and I believe I have correctly outlined its necessary role in preserving the system today. Today the labeling and drugging is at levels never seen before.

    You said: “I believe that capitalism is slowly becoming more humanized, even as it becomes more un-equal.”

    With that comment you have turned reality upside down. The millions harmed by this system would seriously challenge this bogus claim.

    And where is the evidence of “…capitalism jettisoning the dead weight of psychiatry.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Someone else

    Thanks for the compliment on the song. I agree with some of your comment.

    You said: “And I will point out, Richard, that the goal of those bankers is a socialist/communist type system, of course, with them at the top.”

    I don’t think we want to mix up definitions of key words. All these banks and the banking system are operating in a profit based capitalist system., where the law of value and the drive for profit dominates the economic landscape.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Auntie P

    Thanks for the positive remarks about the song.

    I do not think psychiatry’s PR machine “will bring the whole rotten facade down.”

    I believe we will have to tear it down ourselves. Society is becoming more and more polarized AND it seems to tolerate many extreme viewpoints in the so-called “market place of ideas.” Just look at how the System is tolerating and legitimizing Trump’s alternative universe of modern day fascism – “alternate facts” are allowed to stand next to the truth. It’s all part of the “marketplace.”

    Psychiatry’s “alternate universe” is allowed (because it is useful to the preserving the status quo) to stand right next to very devastating scientific critiques and personal stories that detail the horrors of the Medical Model. I have come to realize that the “Powers That Be” will NEVER allow this to all somehow be resolved (one way or the other) under this current political and economic system.

    Remember who controls the media and who benefits from psychiatry’s role in society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Slaying the Dragon

    Thank you very much for the compliment and your comment. I am not sure Frank believes a humane form of socialism is impossible.

    I know you restrained yourself from going off on socialist ideas, and I also know on many subjects you respect and use science in your critical thinking skills, especially when you critique psychiatry.

    I genuinely would like to know what it is about your view of human nature, or of the human species, that somehow makes socialism and cooperation on the highest level impossible for human beings to achieve. Yes, there were many problems with prior experiments, but do you have some scientific evidence that these kind of systems are unachievable by the human species. And, if so, what is that specific evidence. And keep in mind that many great discoveries by human beings failed in their first attempts, only later to succeed.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thanks for the comment Steve.

    I would say that genuine socialism and/or communism CANNOT be a “top down” form of governing.

    Humane and forward thinking leadership must be the kind that creates the most favorable conditions in a socialist system for more and more people from the masses of people to grow and evolve into leaders themselves.

    There is nothing inherently wrong with socialism as a system, or anything that guarantees that it will fail and/or become authoritarian.

    We are still learning and summing up past mistakes from prior revolutions. AND the we must face the fact that these experimental socialist systems were surrounded by capitalist governments whose main mission was to make sure that socialism was defeated and/or failed.

    Do you believe that capitalism and psychiatry have now become inseparably bound with the same future?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • liittleturtle

    Thanks fr that comment.

    My “spirituality” is the human connectivity of people fighting to both understand and change the world for the better. Being a part of radical and revolutionary movements (in addition to loving family members) since the 1960’s has help keep me sane in this very insane world – it is a day to day struggle. Fortunate for me I have never been labeled (accept as a troublemaker) or drugged by the system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Mi

    Psychiatry is bad where ever it is, but now we face a capitalist world where psychiatry and Big Pharma are governed by the law of value. They seek the highest rate of profit by any means necessary, including corrupting science in order to justify their pseudo-science for a bogus Medical Model. They also need to maintain social control of people and find psychiatry very useful for this purpose.

    We cannot end psychiatric abuse unless we face the reality that capitalism stands as a roadblock for ending these kinds of Human Rights violations. Capitalism is NOT the highest pinnacle of human social organization. We can do FAR BETTER than this kind of systemic insanity.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Stop with this form of exaggerating people’s comments and putting your words in other people’s mouth. The jury is out on the question of “irreversibly damaged.”

    The question being discussed here: Is there damage from psychiatric drugs that can lead to various forms of disablement?

    Ever since I have written and commented at MIA I have ALWAYS promoted the concept of “neuroplasticity” and promoted a belief that people can get better from harm caused by psychiatry.

    You have been unfortunately promoting a mixture of “damage denial” and “blame the victim” with some of your other more appropriate criticisms of psychiatry and appropriate belief in people taking control of their lives.

    We are calling you out on these negative undercurrents in your blog and you are defensively doubling down on your inappropriate remarks. How about really listening for a change?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Thanks so much for that comment. I appreciate all of your critical thinking skills when deconstructing the Medical Model. I also appreciate your willingness to be self-critical when you miss a point or misinterpret someone’s comment.

    When will Lawrence be self-critical and admit that he was promoting a theme of “blame the victim” in part of his blog?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    You said: “So by your insisting that people don’t have any of these capabilities when in reality they do have some, you are being pro-psychiatry…”

    Stop putting your words in my mouth and/or creating “straw man” arguments to cover up a wrong position. Where have I EVER said people do not have the capabilities of “choice” and “responsibility?”

    What the whole argument centers around here is: where do we place BLAME for these problems? You are making a strong case that the blame should be SHARED by the victims. Bullshit!

    So I guess women who are raped should have known better than to have worn provocative cloths and/or drank too much alcohol, and/or been alone with the rapist. According to you, they must SHARE the blame – bullshit!

    So I guess the millions of Jews should have refused to “willingly” get on the trains. They should have known better; they should have known better that the Nazis were up to no good. They should have put up more resistance, and therefore they must SHARE the blame for their ultimate demise – bullshit!

    And Black people should know better than to show attitude towards cops, show up in high risk places, and/or display any behavior that might be suspicious in any way, and therefore they must SHARE the blame for being gunned down by the cops – bullshit!

    People stuck in poverty could have made different choices in their life, and/or “pull themselves up by their bootstraps” and therefore they must SHARE the blame for remaining in the bottom rungs of society – bullshit!

    You sound like Bill Cosby (we know where he ended up) when he used to moralistically preach to other Black people about SHARING blame for their remaining stuck in poverty, on welfare, and having children without two parents etc., etc. – bullshit!

    Again, in ONE TO ONE conversations with individuals in any of these particular situations we would most definitely help someone carefully sum up their choices and options in life, so they might do their best to avoid risky situations, danger, defeatist type mentalities etc.

    But on a societal level, we are talking about institutional and systemic forms of violence. In these conversations and public positions we NEVER EVER place ANY blame on the oppressed. This only serves to reinforce the ideology and programs of the oppressor.

    Lawrence, you are NOT being anti-psychiatry when you “blame the victims” of psychiatry by saying they must SHARE responsibility for their position as victims. This is bullshit!

    I usually don’t use this strong form of language in my comments. But you have refused to be self-critical of your comments, and have doubled down on your arguments while deploying specious methods of debating such important issues.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To Steve, Oldhead, Julie and All Others Minimizing the “blame the victim” theme in this blog:

    Reread the following quote from the blog:

    “In seeking psychiatric treatment, clients transfer responsibility for dealing with life’s struggles to medical authorities….They thus commit to and get locked into lifelong dependence on psychiatry.”

    “…CLIENTS TRANSFER RESPONSIBILITY…THEY THUS COMMIT TO ….LIFELONG DEPENDENCE ON PSYCHIATRY…”

    This is a straight up “blame the victim” bullshit. There is no such thing as genuine or real “CONSENT TO TREATMENT” when people are sucked into, through false advertising and billion dollar PR campaigns, and/or coerced into psychiatry’s web of lies and oppressive forms of so-called “treatment.”

    Of course, if I had a ONE TO ONE counseling relationship and/or friendship, with someone caught up in the system, yes, I would be challenging them to take control of their life and find ways to not get caught up in any forms of “learned helplessness.

    But I would NEVER EVER make ANY broad blanket like public statements that put ANY AMOUNT of blame on the millions of victims of these oppressive institutions, like psychiatry, which both cause and perpetuate poverty and disability.

    I can’t believe some of you can’t see the serious problems with this blog, in addition to its denial of specific forms of harm done by psychiatric drugging.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    You said: “There have always been, and will always be harsh experiences in all societies, partly because man’s nature is often harsh.”

    It seems you are saying that human nature is INHERENTLY AND FOREVER “harsh?”

    This is an UNSCIENTIFIC AND STATIC VIEW of human nature that serves those who cannot see beyond a class based profit system with all its inequalities and daily forms of violence.

    A much more scientific view (both dialectical and historical) would say that human beings have the capacity to be both loving and cooperative in their nature, IF surrounded by an environment that provides for their basic needs, encourages full participation, and maintains a high level of safety.

    If the surrounding environment cannot provide the above mentioned basic conditions, then, of course, human beings can be “harsh” and even quite violent.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    No where in any of your comments do you address the fact that children and other people living in this society experience daily traumas that have their origins in various unequal and oppressive institutions OTHER than psychiatry.

    Lawrence do you believe that poverty can be a form of violence perpetrated on human beings?

    If psychiatry disappeared today, there would still be thousands of other human stressors (“Me Too” moments) arising out of the bowels of this society that would still push human beings over the proverbial edge.

    These are issues that neither you or “Slaying the Dragon” seem to want to address in your commentary.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    You are rather quickly undoing all of the “good will” and support you accumulated with some of your past blogs critical of psychiatry.

    You are clearly DENYING the growing body of evidence that psychiatric drugs perturb, alter, and disable the serotonergic, norepinephrinergic, and dopaminergic neuro-chemical processes in the brain (and in other parts of the body, especially with serotonin being in the gut system). There is clear evidence that SSRI’s reduce the number of serotonin receptors in the brain, and neuroleptics (anti-psychotics) add to the number of D2 dopamine receptors (and cause harmful metabolic changes in the body). The latter (increased D2 dopamine receptors) is the basis for the supersensitivity theory (leading to psychosis) when people too quickly taper off of anti-psychotic drugs. And benzos do serious harm to the gaba receptors in the brain, that can last for long periods of time. Some people may have permanent damage – the jury is still out on the very long term effects.

    You said “In seeking psychiatric treatment, clients transfer responsibility for dealing with life’s struggles to medical authorities….They thus commit to and get locked into lifelong dependence on psychiatry.”

    Who is primarily to blame for this dependence and what are its major components? You have presented a very strong current of “blame the victim” in the way you have characterized people’s disablement due to psychiatric mistreatment. Of course, “learned helplessness” is a factor in some of the cases of those harmed by today’s “mental health” practitioners, but this is only one small piece of the problem.

    In past discussions you have tried to say you were apolitical and you avoided addressing larger political questions. But it sounds like you might be presenting arguments here that back up Right Wing (blame the victim) views of those people stuck in poverty etc. You can’t have it both ways, that is, openly avoiding larger political discussions yet seemingly trumpeting a “conservative” analysis of why people are stuck in the underclasses.

    And finally, you said: “And drug effects can’t explain why antidepressant users decline over time, since they’re placebos.”

    You have this ALL wrong – antidepressants are ACTIVE placebos. They have a placebo effect, both because they are prescribed by a doctor and advertised as successful, AND because they are chemical agents that intrinsically make people feel different and actually alter neuro-chemical processes. This is one reason why double blind studies are corrupted because almost everyone (including the patient) knows who is actually getting the tested drug.

    Lawrence, usually I would say “you can do better than this”, but now I am not so sure where you are coming from with this type of analysis.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Au Valencia and All

    A very positive blog that raises many important questions.

    You said: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.”

    Here is where this blog falls way short in an analysis that can lead us towards ending all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    Who is the “master” and what is his “house.”

    Your blog makes no mention of the critical role of a profit based capitalist economic system in setting the terms for the perpetuation of class inequality and the violence of poverty pervading our society, and of course, extending (through Imperialist exploitation) around the world.

    Psychiatry and their entire Disease/Drug based Medical Model has evolved in to an essential component of the entire capitalist system. The pharmaceutical industry is a vital (highly profitable) cog in the U.S. economy, and the entire “mental health” system has increasingly become an important means of social control on the more volatile sections of our society.

    Labeling and drugging people is a crucial way to control and eliminate dissent.

    “Genetic theories of original sin” turn people’s focus away from institutional forms of oppression by focusing attention on inherent “genetic” flaws that need so-called “medical” solutions, and “band aids” that become new forms of mental and physical chains.

    And there can be no legitimate use of science as a liberating force for social change in society when it is constantly controlled and corrupted by those forces in society who place the bottom line of profit ahead of the search for the truth.

    Psychiatric abuse in ALL its manifestations cannot be ended within a capitalist system.

    Au Valencia, please raise your head and your sights just a little higher and begin to address these much bigger and essential questions that necessitate answers before we can truly create a world WITHOUT any form of a “mental health” system.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    Happy Birthday! You are indeed an inspiration to all of us.

    I really identify with how you feel such a strong sense of an historical moral imperative to guide your behavior and choices in life. These moral imperatives are obviously guided by your own personal experience in this world, and most certainly by having educated yourself politically about how institutions and power relationships operate in the world. AND of course, most fundamentally, by a deep sense of love for your fellow human beings.

    Your efforts to end Electroshock are noble, and I wish you great success in your work on the artistic front with “The Other Mrs. Smith.” Perhaps I should consider writing a new song. Soon I will be posting at MIA an anti-psychiatry song that I have been singing for the past year.

    Bonnie, keep up the great work and dedication towards liberating all of humanity from all these shackles of oppression. And especially, how you are able to focus in on the extra forms of oppression heaped upon women in this world. We must all acknowledge that tomorrow is International Women’s Day – “Unleash the Fury of Women as a Mighty Force for Revolution.”

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You said: “Medicalization [of human thought, feelings, and behavior] is an example of scientism in practice.”

    This is nonsensical verbal gymnastics on your part to fit a specious argument.

    The “medicalization” that Psychiatry promotes and practices is *mythology* in practice. They have to distort and subvert scientific methodology in order to arrive at their wrong and harmful conclusions and practices. Why even give them (and it) any so-called scientific trappings by even using a word like “scientism.”

    I suggest you and Oldhead read some of the in depth debate about the history of this term, and how contentious, confusing, and politically charged many of the arguments are surrounding the use of this term.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I see intuition, and the feelings associated with it, as representing partial knowledge (little bits and pieces of knowledge combined with one’s past experience) that leads to embryonic forms of thought and conclusions about what may or may not happen, or be anticipated to occur in someone immediate future.

    I don’t think we can separate it from past experience or one’s logic about probable events in the real world based on that experience.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You said: “We don’t need more people applying the scientific method where it can’t, or shouldn’t, be applied.”

    Once again, please tell me where are those places where it can’t or shouldn’t be applied?

    You said: “Logic is not the truth. Logic is a method for determining what the truth actually is, and of distinguishing that truth from falsehood.”

    Exactly Frank, and that is also exactly what science is suppose to do.

    And you can never be TOO good at either logic or science. And to say you can be, is a way (for some people) to diminish the importance of science, and thus leave the door open for superstition to guide one’s thinking. And we see all the dark places where that has led human beings in the past.

    And Frank, behaviorism denies the role and importance of consciousness. I would never deliberately do that. Please tell me where you think I might have done that in any of my writings.

    The use of the nonsensical “scientism” term is a backward step in ANY discussions critiquing Psychiatry and psychiatric oppression. It cannot be justified, and no one here has come close to making a legitimate case for its value in these discussions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    I would truly like to plead guilty to “scientism,” but the nonsensical, contradictory, controversial, and inconsistent use of the term, prevents me from doing so.

    Even the defining type quotes you chose above make my case for why this term should never be used in these discussions.

    “excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.”

    We need MORE people being scientific, and thinking scientifically in this world, NOT LESS. Just look at the horrible crimes perpetrated against other human being by those who follow superstition.

    Let’s take the words “rational” and “logical,” can there really be such a [negative] thing as being “too rational” and/or “too logical”? You could only answer, yes, in instances where people somehow lacked an understanding of other people’s emotions. And even here we can draw “rational” and “logical ” conclusions about how such behavior may need to explore a deeper understanding of how humans are effected in these situations.

    Frank, what are those things in the world to which we cannot somehow apply some aspect of the scientific method? And for those things to which TODAY we cannot seemingly do this, who says that TOMORROW we may not find a way to explore these questions in a scientific way?

    And Frank, for those things that you do not think science is currently useful or helpful for, are you willing to trust religion, or some other faith based and/or superstitious belief system to provide the answer?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    First you quote me as follows:

    “They are instead being dishonest, manipulative, deceptive etc. etc. etc. and the list goes on.”

    Then you follow that up with a one liner that reads:

    “Exactly. And they have it down to a science.”

    You know damn well that YOUR USE of the word “science” here is NOT the meaning of “science” throughout the two blogs in question. Come on, let’s have a dialogue that reflects the essential meaning of these words.

    Then you ask me the question:

    “Are you suggesting though that “science” should replace religion in determining what behavior is “moral”?

    I would ask you: do we need religion to have morality? Were human beings acting in moral ways BEFORE the advent of religion? Can atheists be moral human beings?

    And if we look at the essential content of the Bible, we can hardly call this a bastion of morality. And if we look at a sizeable percentage of those who strictly follow religious teachings, can we call them people who act in moral ways, or even profess a set of behaviors that could be classified as consistently moral?

    You already know what my answers are to these questions.

    And since you threw the ultimate bate here, YES, if science was somehow used to help determine those behaviors and material conditions on earth that would afford human beings the very best opportunities to live a free, non exploitative, and just human existence, it would be FAR superior than what any so-called religion could offer.

    And any careful examination of the historical role of religion and its overall effect on human beings would bear out my above statement. And I have no reason to not think this will be the case in the future.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You described “scientism” as the following: “…I would read the term as referring to the embracing of “science” as some embrace religion, i.e. as a dogma to believe in rather than as a tool to help understand the material world…”

    Even your attempt at defining this highly misused and confusing term in NO WAY shows how it represents, or helps explain what is fundamentally wrong with Psychiatry’s approach to developing the disease/drug based Medical Model.

    They are not way using science in a “religious” way. That is, believing in science too strongly or with too much fervor etc. They are totally DEVIATING from the scientific method and using very distorted and corrupted methodology to arrive at their bogus conclusions. The only sense that your use of a religious analogy would be, is that they base all of their conclusions on FAITH, not real scientific evaluation of facts in the real world.

    And Psychiatry is NOT being “scientific,” or “TOO scientific,” when they deceive the public with their pseudo-scientific claims. They are instead being dishonest, manipulative, deceptive etc. etc. etc. and the list goes on.

    Oldhead, don’t forget that there is a whole segment of the population that is very much threatened by legitimate science (or TOO much science), and they need to place certain limits on its acceptance as an important way of analyzing the world around us. This is, because it seriously challenges and threatens those who place a great deal of dependence on faith based belief systems to determine behavioral and moral choices in life. More often than not, these same people will fall out on the “conservative” spectrum, that is, defending the status quo and criticizing those seeking Revolutionary change in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To all

    Once again Dr Sami Timimi has ruined a potentially good blog by repeatedly using the term “scientism” (even in the title) to describe psychiatry’s pseudoscience as it applies to the ADHD diagnosis.

    The term “scientism” is completely nonsensical and confusing in this context and undermines the goals of anyone who is trying to present a critical analysis of the oppressive disease/drug based model of Psychiatry.

    “sci·en·tism
    ˈsīənˌtizəm/
    nounrare
    noun: scientism

    thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
    excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.”

    The term “scientism” is most often used as a way to criticize GENUINE scientists for over emphasizing the power and role of science in seeking truth and creating a more just and moral world.

    Modern Psychiatry is in NO WAY being TOO scientific in their efforts to convince people that human psychological distress is based in faulty genes and brain diseases, AND allegedly requires psychiatric drugs (not “medications”) to “fix” all these “chemical imbalances” in the brain.

    The reality here is the exact OPPOSITE of what Psychiatry has both posited, and executed in their theory and practice. They are NOT using a real scientific methodology in their psychiatric diagnoses, and they are guilty (in so many ways) of totally corrupting the scientific method throughout their entire efforts to promote their Medical Model.

    I am amazed and dumbfounded as to why most of the commenters here at MIA seem to suspend all their critical thinking skills and allow the use of the term “scientism” to go completely unchallenged. Using this term is not just utterly confusing, but also undermines our efforts to expose this oppressive Medical Model.

    Dr. Timimi says the following:

    “I was astonished to realise that ADHD had been conjured into existence by a few people’s imaginations without evidential basis. The evidence then brought forward avoided the scientific methodology and ignored the ‘null hypothesis’ (the basic and starting assumption that ADHD does not represent a characteristic natural entity, which should be assumed until concrete evidence is presented that shows that this null hypothesis cannot be true).”

    Using Dr. Timimi’s own words here, WHERE THE HELL is there even a USEFUL definition of the term “scientism” that has ever been used in either of his two blogs? And he has even placed this term in the title, as if it were somehow a negative critique of Psychiatry. He has, in no way, even attempted to prove that the word “scientism” has ANY legitimate meaning when critiquing what is wrong with the Medical Model.

    The word “scientism” is a highly contested and confusing term which leads ALL of us away from our goals of applying a consistent and accurate analysis of Psychiatry’s negative and oppressive role in the world.

    And as a secondary criticism, Dr. Timimi continues to use the word “medication” to describe psychiatric drugs. Once again, I will point out that both Psychiatry and Big Pharma has spent several hundred billion dollars on the the world’s largest PR campaign attempting (quite successfully) to convince people all over the world that their mind altering drugs are some form of “medication.” We should never concede them the ability and right to use this false terminology. Changing language is a critical part of any historical movement for social change. Let’s start NOW!

    I wanted to like Dr. Timimi’s blog; he does provide some very good critical analysis of the ADHD diagnosis. But his reckless and cavalier use of the term “scientism” sticks out like a sore thumb and undermines the essential content of a potentially good blog.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Good blog.

    Agree with Oldhead; better without the American chauvinism and the promotion of “American Exceptionalism.”

    AND, you/we don’t need Freud to explain the underlying basis of “free will.”

    In the “five stages of change” theory, the “pre-contemplation” and “preparation” stages are a far better explanation for brain activity preceding any actual behavior change.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Joanna

    You raise some good points.

    I believe this is where the term “consensus reality” has some serious limitations and problems in meaning.

    If the “consensus” is based on an inaccurate interpretation of the real world (the material world independent of our own individual thoughts reflecting that world), and/or the “consensus” is based on the social groupings of humans promoting and allowing any forms of exploitative and/or potentially traumatic type experiences to exist among them, then all forms of human “validation” will now be corrupted and ultimately lead to more extreme forms of psychological distress.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You sometimes bring nit-picking to absolutely absurd levels. Instead of going after and deepening an analysis of the American chauvinism and narrowness displayed in some of these above comments, you wasted time and space on trivial points in my comment.

    Anybody truly aware of what is taking in this country knows that Trump, AND his overtly fascist agenda, represents a dangerous leap in efforts by the ruling class to clamp down within this society.

    And it was Trump who tried to say there were “two sides” to the fascists who marched in Charlotsville. Posing the above question to Lawrence, using Trump as an example, was necessary and very appropriate in making comparisons in the above political challenge to him.

    And today’s modern psychiatry IS Biological Psychiatry. This terminology has very important historical meaning an implications for what is going on in the world today.

    Yes, all psychiatry is scientifically and philosophically flawed and oppressive as an institution in society, and must be abolished. But we can’t ignore the level and totality of the newer forms of oppression brought forward by the advent of BIOLOGICAL Psychiatry.

    If you can’t, or do not want to, engage in a deeper analysis of what developed over the last 4 decades, then this is your loss. But please stop wasting time and focus from what is important here.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    You said: “I don’t have strong political views. I can see both sides’ points.”

    We live in a world where it is becoming more and more difficult for people to straddle fences. Especially when those fences are becoming as sharp as razor blades. Fence sitting can soon become a dangerous and bloody mess in these kind of times. Just ask those Germans who stood aloof and hesitated in the 1930’s. AND what do you currently see (or want to unite with) on Trump’s side of the fence, or rather, wall?

    Political indecision, political “neutrality,” and/or intellectual laziness in these times, is to abandon any kind of moral compass and eventually morph into becoming part of THE problem.

    You said : “We seem to have achieved this without oppressing people as much as in other nations (with the obvious exception of slavery). That’s why so many people have always wanted to leave their lands to come here.”

    This statement contains a great deal of American chauvinism and/or ignorance. The U.S. is an Imperialist empire whose high standard of living has been accumulated over the last century on the backs of many Third World countries.

    U.S based atrocities did not somehow end with the Civil War. What about the 2-3 million Asian people who died because of the U.S. led Vietnam war of plunder? What about the 500 thousand to one million Iraqi people who died from the largest “drive by shooting” on the planet earth?

    AND what about the political despots propped up in El Salvador and Guatemala who unleashed (U.S. trained) death squads and mass political terror on indigenous populations resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths?

    Do you REALLY wonder why desperately poor people from those above mentioned countries (that U.S. Imperialism has kept in a state of enforced backwardness) want to come to America???

    Is it because they truly worship the American Dream and all the so-called (partial) freedoms we have? Or are they making a basic human survival choice enforced on them by the inherent inequalities of profit based systems that divides up a planet in to “have” and “have not ” countries.

    Lawrence, I respect your work here at MIA, and support many of your critiques of everything that is wrong with Psychiatry and their entire paradigm of so-called “treatment.”

    You said: “My goal is thus to correct psychiatry’s lies so people will realize they have the power/ability to choose/pursue their own paths.”

    I would argue that you (and anyone else joining you) will fail miserably at this goal if you attempt to remain politically neutral and/or aloof from the political realities facing us all. And this means drawing very clear links between Biological Psychiatry and the oppressive profit based system from which it was spawned, AND whose existence depends upon it ability to help maintain social control of its people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    You are conducting this entire discussion about “desire” and “ability” to work in the U.S. without EVER mentioning or discussing the huge elephant sitting in the room.

    What is the fundamental relationship of those potential workers (who are labeled and/or acting “disabled”) to the means of production, and to those who own and control the means of production?

    This is would be like discussing the lack of “motivation” and “desire” of a certain number of slaves (prior to the U.S. Civil War) who may have been crushed by their position as slaves, or engaged in some form of resistance by refusing to work.

    Most workers in this country (even those not politically conscious) are aware on some level that they are being exploited.

    Remember that under capitalism workers are given wages that reflect only a PARTIAL portion of the value that they have created and impart on the goods they produce. Also, relationships between people in such a society are also quite often turned into commodity type relationships that are highly alienating.

    While this level of oppression (for wage workers) does not compare to the forms of oppression under chattel slavery, it is still VERY MUCH an exploitative relationship. AND it MUST be taken into consideration of ANY discussion of “motivation” and “desire” of those living in this society, including ALL those coming into contact with Psychiatry.

    Any genuine scientist must examine ALL FACTORS in the environment in which the experiment (and the evaluation of such an experiment) is taking place. You consistently seem to want to avoid such discussions. If you are serious about ending all psychiatric oppression, you are going to have to start addressing these issues.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob

    Great investigative journalism that reveals some very important kernels of change (of worldwide significance) emerging within the Israeli “mental health” system.

    I would like to raise 3 questions/concerns regarding some of the particular details revealed in this blog. I raise these to promote further discussion and debate regarding some contentious issues involved in trying create a paradigm shift in the world. These are NOT criticisms meant to undermine the overall importance of this great blog.

    1) Bob you said: “If this initiative succeeds Soteria homes will become a centerpiece of Israeli psychiatry.”

    I think this statement tends to overestimate what this experiment is doing within the Israeli “mental health” system. Even though there are clearly some more open minded visionaries working in this system willing to experiment, they are up against some powerful forces in the pharmaceutical industry and the APA. All it will take is a few serious setbacks for THE System to discredit these alternative programs (and its leaders) and to reinforce the value of hospital incarceration and drugging as a quick and easier form of social control.

    We cannot forget that we here in the U.S., and those citizens in Israel, live in despotic/pseudo-democratic regimes built upon a foundation of profound forms of imperialistic oppression. Changes of the magnitude required to fundamentally end all forms of psychiatric oppression, ultimately run up against an inherent need by current governments and institutions to maintain maximum control of any forms of social unrest. This statement is NOT meant to undercut these developments but only present a more sobering approach as to what may be required to actually achieve this paradigm shift.

    2) Pesach Lichenberg is quoted in his description of the Soteria experiment by saying “…What could be done, he wondered, to exploit the placebo to its maximum? Couldn’t a different setting help achieve that?”

    It must be pointed out here that the Soteria environment is NOT an example of the “Placebo Effect.” Everything described about this radically new environment for recovery, is the exact antithesis of what can be expected from a psychiatric hospital experience, including with the massive amount of psychiatric drugging. In fact, it is vitally necessary to make the point that there are huge differences in what participants in these programs will experience related to the characteristics of “respect,” “love,” “nurturance,” “boundaries,” “safety, and especially, the absence of no (or very little) psychiatric drugging.

    3) And finally, Bob, I need to continue an important contentious dialogue regarding the use of the language describing psychiatric drugs as “medications.” While this might seem like nit-picking, or very trivial when looking at the importance of promulgating the lessons of the Soteria experience, I strongly believe it is necessary to once again raise this issue.

    In this article, both you and others go back and forth using the terms “psychiatric drugs” and “medications” interchangeably. When “psychiatric drugs” is used it is very clear what the meaning is and does not somehow make your comments sound like an “outlier.” In fact, I often read hardcore biological psychiatrists use the term “psychiatric drugs” when describing their prescriptions as the centerpiece of their so-called “treatment” modality.

    However, when you and others slip back into referring to these drugs as “medications,” it is reinforcing one of the centerpieces of the entire Medical Model of so-called “treatment.” Bob, everyone of your books has exposed the myth of these drugs being some form of “magic bullet medication” targeting “diseases” or “chemical imbalances” in the brain. Your books, along with those of Peter Breggin and other critics of Biological Psychiatry, have exposed the fact that Big Pharma and other Medical Model proponents, have literally spent several billion of dollars on highly crafted PR campaigns convincing the worldwide public that their mind altering drugs are “medications.”

    Bob, wouldn’t it be a good thing, if every so often someone said to you (and others, avoiding the “medication” term), “Hey, I noticed that you seem to always use the term “psychiatric drugs” and avoid saying “medication,” why is that?”

    Wouldn’t this be a great opportunity to explain the huge difference in this terminology, and why you choose not to want to reinforce, or somehow support, the dangerous myths promoted by the Medical Model. By doing this you WILL NOT in any way be undermining your credibility (or scientific credentials) by somehow avoiding the term “medication,” but you will only be maintaining a clear consistency of a well thought out scientific and political narrative.

    We cannot underestimate the overall importance of making specific language changes (from “medication” to “psychiatric drugs”) in our efforts to seek a paradigm change on a world scale. Any serious examination of prior significant historic movements, would validate the importance of changing language as part of these historic shifts. Let’s start the consistency of this language change NOW!

    Great work, Bob. Carry on! You inspire us all.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Tom Petty’s death was NO accident!

    The title should be: “Mainstream Pharmacy is Causing the Poly-drug Crisis.”

    Calling this crisis an “opioid crisis” is a misnomer that leads people far away from solving these problems. Very rarely does anyone die from a single dose of a single drug.

    While it is a good thing that other drugs like benzos are now being exposed as a major factor in the poly-drug overdose crisis. there is absolutely NO ACCOUNTABILITY for these crimes of medical negligence.

    This article still repeats the lie that Tom Petty and all these other famous, and not so famous people, died from “…an accidental drug overdose.” These are NOT ACCIDENTS. When someone like Tom Petty is prescribed multiple forms of opiates AND TWO benzos, this is criminal negligence or manslaughter by a medical establishment and pharmaceutical industry that knows better and continues to puts its own power and profit above public responsibility.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    You said: “It’s kind of humbling to many to recognize that our “sanity” is not based squarely on rationality, but on a mix of rationality with more arbitrary factors, something perhaps even more like spiritual revelation.”

    Your reference to “spiritual revelation” needs to be clarified. I do not view this “spiritual” necessity in a religious sense, but in the sense of the need for “human connectivity.”

    In order for us to truly believe that our “rationality” about the world makes complete sense, is to have VALIDATION from other human beings in our social group.

    It is very difficult to sustain oneself as a “voice in the wilderness” for an extended period of time. Loss of sanity usually comes when someone is engaged in a perpetual dialogue within themselves with no “validation” from other people around them.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    You said: ” And someone’s behavior, unless it’s the result of a real disease like seizures, is the result of their CHOICE.” [my emphasis]

    I completely disagree with this implied meaning; it falls into a “blame the victim” view of troubled behaviors prevalent throughout our society.

    For example, the most obvious disputed description of addiction, is that “addiction is a choice.” In fact, someone actually wrote a book with this title. Even though I agreed with the main themes of the book which were taking on the “disease” theory of addiction, I thought the title was terrible.

    When someone experiments with drugs at age 13, they are NOT making a choice to become an “addict.” “Yea, I think by the time I’m 21, I want to be totally dependent on heroin, living in the street and stealing for my next fix.”

    Addiction is a process, that may occurs over many years, and can sort of creep on some people BEFORE they really know what is happening to themselves.

    However, once someone becomes more fully aware of their addiction and begins to understand the possibility of recovery (or has experienced some period of abstinence) then, YES, further use of the substance (or a relapse), is a now clearly a Choice. They must understand (as an individual) that their ability to change is largely in their own hands, so to speak. Of course to rid society of addiction on a broader scale, will require major systemic changes in our overall society.

    If you don’t understand the difference I just outlined above you will fall into a “blame the victim” approach to describing society’s “symptoms” that manifest themselves in people’s behaviors.

    This same above description would apply to ANY of the so-called “mental disorders” and behaviors that get psychiatrically labeled, including “EDs.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Julie

    You said: “I went on a diet for religious reasons. I don’t consider myself a perfectionist.”

    When I made my above comments about “obsessive” behaviors and discussed some of the psychological factors (especially as it pertains to women and trauma in our society), I was NOT trying to say this necessarily applied to YOUR particular story. Your blog tended to downplay psychological factors in response to the environment and I felt it was necessary to give some explanations where this could be the case.

    You have made a case for dieting to be a cause of so-called “EDs,” but overall for most women in society dieting flows out of some of the factors I discussed above about “standards of beauty” and the cultural pressures on women to be thin in this society. Do you not agree that this is a factor?

    And I would say that almost all “EDs” have some connection to the history and depth of patriarchy penetrating every pore of our society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Julie

    Thanks for this very interesting and provocative blog on so-called eating “disorders” and the various ways the current “mental health” system “treats” them. You have covered a lot of territory and revealed some of contradictory understandings and approaches to helping people deal with these problems. It is very clear (as with all the other so-called “mental disorders”) we cannot, and should not, trust the current System to provide a clear understanding and/or safe forms of help for these problems.

    I would like to raise some comments and questions to help in the search for a greater understanding of these problems so we can get to better solutions.

    You said: “What does this mean? This means that for many of us, the drive to binge is a physical need. Therapy blames the patient for “bad coping” when all she is doing is responding to her body’s signals.”

    The above point you are making does not convince me that there is not an issue of “coping ” here. Of course no one should be “blamed” for anything related to these problems. BUT, all the physical signals you describe here, starting in the pancreas (alerting the body that a binge is imminent) may be very real, but they could have origins in a person’s thought patterns. A person may have a pattern of possibly binging at night and this may be preceded by certain thought patterns that are related to (and trigger) anxiety and/or some type of anticipation of an impending binge. The binge might provide some temporary “relief” from this anxiety, but as we know over the long run it may actually add to a person’s anxiety due to the many problems these behaviors can cause for people.

    We do know that a high percentage of people with these problems (as with most all other psych labels) have a history of some type of trauma in their lives. Trauma causes excessive levels of sustained anxiety combined with other issues of low self esteem and deep shame. This is especially true for many women who live in this society. This is related to the overwhelmingly strong tendency of men to objectify the female body (due to patriarchy) and so-called standards of “beauty” heavily imposed on young girls in our society.

    People will naturally seeks a means to resolve this problems. For some this may involved “obsessively” controlling their intake of food while seeking some order in the face of perceived AND actual chaos in their lives. This can also (for some) evolve into a desire to “disappear” (anorexia), and for others, the opposite tendency to pack on the layers of fat, where both tendencies represent, either a desire to remove any outward signs of sexual maturation and/or physical characteristics that would make them more of sexual “object” to men in this society. These patterns of coping mechanisms (and the emotions attached to them) can become deeply ingrained habits and behaviors that are difficult for people to break away from.

    These types of pressures (especially on women) in our society are huge and often manifest themselves in “unconscious” forms of thoughts and behavior for many young people. They can evolve into a set of eating patterns and behaviors that travel with that person into adulthood.

    So, of course, everything I am saying here is an indictment of the culture within our entire society, and an attempt to get at a deeper understanding of the multiple forms of unrecognized trauma that many young people endure growing up in today’s world. AND it is no accident that the U.S. contains some of the highest rates of the two extremes of anorexia and obesity in the world.

    So I am saying here that these problems are very complex. Yes, there may be some physical components that we are not yet aware of, but there is definite evidence of many psychological components that are directly connected to a very stressful and ‘sick” culture that we all forced to grow up in and endure over our lifetimes.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    I agree with you and Steve on this question. The following quote is from my long comment on Sera Davidow’s recent blog:

    “…NONE of my above conclusions means we should not build struggle and resistance AND/OR alternative forms of systems for those who need help. These are all important ways to expose these forms of human oppression, educate broader numbers of people, bring more people into resistance against the status quo, and save some people along the way. BUT there will be no FUNDAMENTAL type of change in what we all abhor until we grasp the necessity of moving on to a new historical era where capitalism is replaced by a more humane form of socialism.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Susan made a good comment. Her point about “convincing the powers that be” is consistent with her statement that the future of Psychiatry is inseparably bound to the future of capitalism. If you believe Psychiatry can end BEFORE the end of capitalism, then in essence your strategy would involve “convincing” the ruling class to let go of Psychiatry. Psychiatry has become too important and too big to be allowed (by the “powers that be”) to fail.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • So, I guess according to Robert Nikkel, those who believe in making revolutionary changes in this world as it pertains to ending ALL forms of psychiatric abuse, are advocating for nothing more than a form of “PSYCHIATRIC NIHILISM.”

    Definition of nihilism: “…the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless…”

    The tone and content of this blog quite often comes across as arrogant and reveals ignorance about the actual nature of many abolisionist positions relative to anti-psychiatry.

    Robert Nickel has presented the classic “straw man” characterization of an anti-psychiatry position and then proceeds to mock and ridicule it with this hysterical and ominous prediction of how the world would simply fall apart if efforts were made to abolish Psychiatry and the oppressive disease/drug based Medical Model it has spawned.

    Anti-psychiatry positions articulated at MIA and other places in this society are far more advanced, filled with morality and compassion, and nuanced than his completely simplistic and self serving characterization of “psychiatric nihilism.”

    Robert Nikkel says: “These changes are of such magnitude that a planning process, if it was taken seriously… would take many years and yield endless reports because this is obviously a complete re-conceptualization of how [mental health] challenges would be handled. It would require a complete overhaul of how any remaining supports and services would be funded, and how entirely new training programs would be created.”

    “I can guarantee that this would bring lobbyists from every profession (not just psychiatry) and every pharmaceutical corporation out of the woodwork. No legislator would touch it with a one-hundred-foot pole.”

    Robert’s above comment does contain some truths, and herein lies his HUGE error in ridiculing, misconceptualizing, and then characterizing ALL anti-psychiatry positions as being hopelessly monolithic.

    Some of us (I noticed he did not quote any of my writings) have linked the future of psychiatry (because of its critical role of social control and the profitability in the pharmaceutical industry) to the future of the entire capitalist system.

    Ending Psychiatry (based on the depths of its overall influence and power in society ) ultimately involves a complete overhaul of all major institutions in our society, including property relations, and the dominant role of profit in the economy, which corrupts almost all our science, and the functioning of every existing social service agency in our society.

    And Robert, even if you (and others) DO NOT believe such revolutionary changes are possible, I would still say that your analysis lacks an understanding of the overall depths of oppression that Psychiatry wreaks on millions of people today, because you forecast DOOM if somehow it were to suddenly disappear. I have FAR MORE faith in the compassion an ingenuity of the masses to find OTHER ways to help people in psychological distress than the current horror that Psychiatry and their sick system has to offer.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • SDP

    You said: “He seems to believe in human goodness, but what does that even mean if there is no good or evil?”

    SDP, there you go again, you just proved my point about abstracting the concepts of “Good” and “evil” from the real world. Your above sentence makes absolutely no logical sense.

    These are NOT fixed entities (a priori) sitting in some “pie in the sky” alternate universe. Goodness is something that can be ultimately measured (in the real world) by examining the way human beings treat each other. Do they cooperate among themselves for the common benefit OR do they take advantage of others, exploit others, lord over others, and/or directly harm others?

    Then you say: ” But when I point out the inconvenient fact that Marx’s philosophy promoted a struggle for a classless society that resulted in the wholesale slaughter of nearly 100 million people in the most evil totalitarian regimes, who can help but wonder if that is what he means by human flourishing.”

    So is this your way of saying that you CANNOT really find any of Marx’s words that actually promotes “evil” towards other humans, so you have now SHIFTED your argument to say that it was the WAY certain humans attempted to CARRY OUT his theories that somehow proves the theories are wrong?

    I do not accept some of the inflated statistics of deaths under socialist regimes, but leaving aside those debates, I agree it is definitely clear that mistakes by revolutionaries (over many decades) have led to many people dying. Was this the result of bad theory OR human mistakes PLUS the lack of enough human experience in these first historical attempts at bringing something new into being, AND because of the difficulties caused by external attacks on these emerging revolutions from outside enemies wanting to preserve the dominance of capitalism/imperialism???

    Heady questions that demand answers and a deep summation of complex historical events. Far more complex work to be done than your abstracted and simplistic concept of “evil.”

    And since you are a devout Christian, I would ask : how many hundreds of millions of people have been killed carrying out the historical spread of Christianity in the name of God. And looking at the Old Testament of the Bible, I can point to passage after passage (with real words) that actually promotes and upholds some of the most vile and degrading forms of violence towards other innocent human beings. Actually the “God” of the Old Testament would easily fit the definition of the “Original Fascist” based on the forms of violence actually carries out and promoted in His words.

    Now, I am certainly NOT saying all Christians accept or support these scriptures, and most definitely do not act or promote these forms of human behavior towards others.

    But I am pointing out the specific conflict that exists in the world between written words and theories and how they are actually carried out in the real word. And by that standard it is easier for me to point out more problems, contradictions, and hypocrisy with Biblical scriptures and subsequent behavior in the world than you can point out with the words and theories of Karl Marx.

    And I must remind you that no one has “bullied” you. You are are the one who always jumps on anyone who even suggests that humanity might move beyond a class divided society. And then you ridicule the theories of Marx and other followers with your philosophical and/or religious abstractions about alleged “evil” words. Allegations that cannot be backed up by citing any actual proof that you gave read and understood Marx’s words.

    And finally, it is interesting that all the historical societies that you cite as representing the flourishing of “goodness” were built on a foundation of very distinct class differences and related oppression, AND most importantly, built on a foundation of the institution of slavery.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • SDP

    You said: “I’m not sure why you ask me about evil, Richard, since you don’t believe in either good or evil. I have a very high regard for human beings and their great capacity and potential. I also have a realistic view of human nature.”

    Please don’t EVER attempt to speak for me. Where is their ANY quote where I have said I don’t believe in human “goodness”? In fact, all of of my blogs and comments here have usually had themes that emphasized the human potential for goodness, including some real life examples for what it might take to achieve this ON EARTH.

    I also believe that human being are capable of doing “evil” things. HOWEVER, I do not believe in the a priori existence of “evil” or of the existence of some “Devil” like force in the universe causing “evil” things to carried out by people. There is no scientific evidence to back up the existence of such an “evil” force.

    The KEY question in ALL of these discussions is: what material conditions on the planet earth, that is, what forms of human social, economic, and political organization will allow human goodness to flourish AND will (at the same time) suppress and gradually eliminate the desire and/or need for human beings to do harmful and/or “evil” things to other human beings?

    So “Slaying the Dragon,” exactly what is this “…REALISTIC VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE…” of yours? Do you care to explain the so-called limitations of human nature that would make a classless society impossible to ever be achieve (over perhaps several hundred years of struggle). OR tell us why human beings should NOT attempt to work towards taking the steps to build such a world.

    And “Slaying the Dragon,” I am still waiting for one phrase, sentence, and/or paragraph where Karl Marx advocates for human beings to commit an “evil’ act, or where he EVER advocates for anything other than the ultimate emancipation of all of humanity from ALL forms of human oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You said: “If we agree to agree about psychiatry…”

    Michael Savage (the Right Wing Fascist radio talk show host) is against Psychiatry in many ways, and perhaps even Jeffrey Dahmer might have had some issues with Psychiatry.

    But that doesn’t mean I want to sit down and have lunch with either one of them, let alone try to find common ground with their opposition to Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • SDP

    After reading the hundreds of words you have used to describe the “evil” of Karl Marx, could you please show me one phrase, sentence, or paragraph where he EVER advocates for anything other than emancipation of all of humanity from all forms of oppression.

    His development of dialectical and historical materialism describes a path for humanity to eliminate all forms of class inequalities and related forms of oppression, including war and violence towards other human beings.

    It would be one thing for you to be merely describing Karl Marx and his theories as “Utopian” and/or “unrealistic,” but show me where in the actual content of his writings and theories is the “evil” you rant about.

    It is now clear to me that you have such a “fixed” and disgustingly low opinion (actually a very worked out theory and analysis) of a very “dismal” nature of the human species, both as to what it is, and what it is capable of achieving in this world.

    And since you provide no hard evidence to back up this incredibly limited and pessimistic view of human nature, I can only assume you have a view that the “Devil” is somehow at work here. Is that your explanation for why all of humanity cannot, and should not, move beyond capitalism/imperialism and/or the elimination of classes and class inequalities???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    Thanks for responding, I guess. But I hope this “old white guy” and so-called “veteran of the 60’s movement ” wasn’t just getting a “pat on the head” and a “thanks for your service” type response here.

    Usually you have a lot of provocative things to say on most topics; a trait I, more often than not, appreciate very much. I thought I raised some important and “heady” issues related to the questions you raised as to how and why activists and movements can become smothered and even suffer a “death,” AND, most importantly, how can we avoid this happening in the future. And it was all made quite specific in regards to the nature of specific changes in the world relative to Psychiatry and psychiatric forms of abuse.

    Yes, my comment involves some big and controversial issues. Are they too “big” and/or too “hot” to warrant a deeper response from you?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • SDP

    This has everything to do with ending psychiatric oppression.

    If you don’t know from what class and social forces an institution (such as Psychiatry) arose from, and whose interests it serves in today’s world, you will have NO WAY of figuring out how to get rid of it.

    In today’s world, a narrow agenda of ridding ourselves of a single powerful institution, is a total pipe dream and a dead end effort. The interconnection of various class and economic interests are just too vast and deeply intertwined.

    You are stuck in centuries old forms of thinking of battles between “good vs evil” where “evil forces” are some sort of a priori abstraction from material reality. Hence the quite appropriate name, “Slaying the Dragon of Psychiatry.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera and all

    You have articulated some very real and insightful summations of just how difficult it is to be an agent of change working inside today’s “mental health” system. As many know I worked as a therapist for 22 years (until 2015) inside the community mental health system in a working class city in Massachusetts.

    I fought against the takeover of the disease/drug based Medical Model for the entire time I worked there. The labeling and drugging was prolific and the agency probably went through more that two dozen or more psychiatrists and other type of prescribers during that period. I know the “Beast” well from the inside from the perspective of someone who has worked in the System. I’ve seen first hand the damage done.

    Sera, there is no simple or easy solution to your dilemma (not that you thought there was one) and you probably won’t like to hear the conclusions I have drawn from this experience. But here goes.

    I will preface my further comments by saying I have been an antiwar, pro Black Liberation, pro women’s movement, anti-capitalist type activist since the late 1960’s. Back then I came to believe that UNLESS we moved beyond a profit/class based based capitalist system NOTHING of substance would change regarding the major forms of oppression in the world.

    So when I came to understand (in the early 1990’s) that Biological Psychiatry, and their entire paradigm of so-called treatment, was also another major form of institutional oppression harming millions of people with labels and drugs, it was natural for me to fight against it. It was also natural for me to more deeply analyze and study this institutional form of oppression.

    In the beginning of this learning process (especially reading the real science behind these issues), I thought, “wow it is so obvious how harmful these labels and drugs are. And we now have a minority of doctors and other educated experts, along with numerous articulate psychiatric survivor stories, so we can just get the word out (over a relatively short number of years) and blow this whole oppressive paradigm out of the water.”

    Well not so fast, Richard! have you forgotten the lessons you learned in the 1960’s? Have you forgotten what kind of all encompassing and powerful system you are up against here? Have you forgotten how those in power will do anything AND everything to protect their economic interests and hold onto their power and do what it takes to crush and/or demoralize those who dare to challenge the status quo?

    So I am saying that I DID forget some of those past lessons and had a brief period (with the rise of MIA and all the great science and books that were coming out exposing psychiatric abuse) where I thought the Biological Psychiatry house of cards might soon crumble.

    But I have since come back to my senses and have re-engaged with the best of my critical thinking skills. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ME PESSIMISTIC ABOUT CHANGE BUT ONLY MAKES ME MORE REALISTIC ABOUT WHAT IS REQUIRED TO MOVE FORWARD. So here is a list of my conclusions on the dilemma Sera (and thousands of other activists working inside and outside this oppressive system) face in the coming period:

    1) Psychiatry and psychiatric abuse has changed over the past 5 decades. It’s always been oppressive, but it has grown exponentially in power and in the depth to which it has penetrated every pore of our society.

    2) Psychiatry and its collusion with Big Pharma has become a highly profitable business achieving some of the highest rates of profit in the entire capitalist system, and is now a critically important pillar in the U.S. economy.

    3) Over the past 5 decades, with the growing numbers of people labeled and drugged within our society, the ruling class (defending and preserving the status quo by any means necessary) has grown (over time) to understand the valuable role that the psychiatric Medical Model can play in disabling (with labels and drugs) the most potentially volatile sections of society that have traditionally been more rebellious – minorities, prisoners, women, disenfranchised working class youth, and other system outliers.

    4) In the post 9/11 world, the intensity of world wide struggles and contradictions, have increased the need for those in power to maintain control of any type of opposition forces or movements that are aimed at shaking up major institutions. Psychiatry (and its ability to incarcerate and drug someone with a mere signature of a pen) has the political and police power in society that only the Executive Branch of government can rival. In these intense times, allowing Psychiatry to maintain this power is very useful to those resisting political upheaval and trying to preserve the status quo.

    5) So therefore, the economic, political, and social role of Psychiatry (and their entire “mental health” paradigm) has now become INSEPARABLY BOUND to the future of the entire capitalist/imperialist system.
    So in the final analysis, it does not fundamentally matter how much we expose the faulty science and oppressive forms of treatment and build resistance in numbers, Psychiatry and their Medical Model has become TOO BIG AND IMPORTANT to be allowed to fail in the current order of things.

    6) NONE of my above conclusions means we should not build struggle and resistance AND/OR alternative forms of systems for those who need help. These are all important ways to expose these forms of human oppression, educate broader numbers of people, bring more people into resistance against the status quo, and save some people along the way. BUT there will be no FUNDAMENTAL type of change in what we all abhor until we grasp the necessity of moving on to a new historical era where capitalism is replace by a more humane form of socialism.

    7) Therefore, we must find a way through ALL our organizing and transformative work to link the day to day struggles with the broader struggle to make bigger System and institutional change on a world scale. Anything short of this approach will ultimately lead to the types of demoralization and burnout described in Sera’s blog.

    8) Fighting “The Good Fight” on the broader levels I have just described ARE NOT easy, and it can also lead to demoralization and burnout. BUT, at least it represents a more realistic and truer picture of what we are up actually up against, AND what it will actually take to have a chance of reaching our goal of a world free of all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    9) Similar to the conclusions drawn from the environmental movement, we CANNOT save the planet from inevitable worldwide catastrophe WITHOUT System change happening eventually across the entire planet. The same holds true when looking at psychiatric oppression. It may all sound TOO BIG to some people reading this, but it is a “Long March” that is worth starting now. We can all do our part by marching forward with our head and eyes FULLY raised and looking towards the “prize.”

    To Sera and others, this may not be what you wanted to hear, but it is the best that I can offer at this time.
    “Dare to struggle, Dare to Win”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • SDP

    If you call Europe more “socialist” and “decadent” than the U.S. then we are truly living in a different dimension or universe. And that is especially the case if you actually believe the U.S. is becoming more “socialist.”

    You throw science and logic completely out the window with a comment like that. How can there even be a conversation? Where are your definitions of these terms???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    The weakness of your above comment is that you are focusing on “individuals” taking control of their own lives in response to the built in forms of “learned helplessness” promoted by the Medical Model.

    Yes, of course I would be making this a big part of my agenda (as a therapist doing counseling) when dealing with particular clients coming to me with these kinds of problems.

    BUT your approach fails to address the larger systemic issues driving these forms of human alienation etc. In other words, you could do your very BEST work with some of these clients who will still end up staying stuck and mired in “learned helplessness” because the various aspects of financial and social stressors are so overwhelming in society that they will REMAIN crushed by the system.

    These are fundamentally institutional and SYSTEMIC problems inherently built into a class based capitalist system. THIS IS STRUCTURAL OPPRESSION THAT SHOULD NOT BE REDUCED TO INDIVIDUALS WHEN SEEKING THE SO-CALLED SOLUTION TO THESE MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS.

    This is why you have a libertarian, such a “Slaying the Dragon,” (who worships at the feet of “free market” capitalism), SO QUICKLY cosigning your above comment. He does not want to penetrate beneath the surface and search for where the sources of human alienation reside in contemporary capitalist society.

    Lawrence, your above analysis is “enabling” a libertarian perspective to get over with only a surface understanding of the nature of these deeply structural problems.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Yes, Psychiatry and Big Pharma are trying to expand their markets (it’s very profitable), but it is very important to see how “selective” they are in terms of focus and strategic importance.

    And don’t get me wrong here, I am not presenting some type of conspiracy theory here. No, Psychiatry and Big Pharma did not sit in some secret place back in the 1960’s or 1970’s and specifically design this Medical Model to target potential rebellious elements in society.

    No, this whole paradigm has instead slowly evolved in this direction. For example, let’s look at the role of psych drugs in prisons. Fifteen or twenty years ago, prison authorities would often DENY psych drugs to the prison population. Many times they would suffer terrible withdrawal because they were denied access to their prescription drugs.

    However, this has now changed since prison authorities have grown to understand (over time) that these drugs (and the threat to deny them) can be used as an effective tool in controlling the prison population.

    Lawrence, your above answer has NOT addressed the two main points I made about how Psychiatry (using labels and drugs AND “genetic theories of “original sin””) has become a vital instrument of social control targeting certain potentially volatile sections in our society. Do you disagree with my analysis.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence and all

    I agree with several of Slaying the Dragon’s and Oldhead’s criticisms, however, they do not go far enough and leave out some vitally important points. This is especially true when looking at what is misguided and missing from Lawrence’s final concluding remarks.

    Lawrence you said: “Psychiatry’s main role now is thus to stop more and more able-bodied people from contributing to society, and to offer them society’s benefits that are contingent upon their not contributing. Psychiatry has mutated from feared enforcer to parasitic saboteur of the social contract on a huge scale — so it’s now an outlier that’s threatening society’s survival, and thus must be banished.”

    When you say psychiatry is “threatening society’s survival…,”what “society” are you referring to? Here you are missing the historical reality that Psychiatry has now become an essential institution in maintaining the current class based/profit system of capitalism.

    Psychiatry has become (especially over the past 4 decades) a key instrument of social control maintaining the status quo by disabling (through labeling, drugging and incarcerating) the potentially more volatile sections of society who are most harmed by the system, AND most likely to be part of a movement rebelling against it. Here I am referring to women, minorities, rebellious white working class youth, student rebels, and other non-conformists and system outliers. The very forces in society who formed the backbone of rebellions in the 1960’s.

    Secondarily, Psychiatry and their disease based/drug Medical Model focuses everyone’s attention on personal and/or genetic flaws in human beings as the cause of society’s lack of progress beyond the “dog eat dog”, “survival of the fittest” concepts of human nature promoted as a means to JUSTIFY the need for a class based/profit system. AND it further justifies accepting all the inequalities and the overall state of perpetual war as an unfortunate necessity of life given this so-called “fixed” state of human nature. Ashley Montagu called them “genetic theories of “original sin.””

    The current ruling classes propping up this capitalist system have totally written off certain sections of society as being no longer necessary to preserve their system. They DON’T CARE if inner city minorities ever work or become productive in society. They know their system is NOT CAPABLE of incorporating them into the mainstream of society with jobs etc. – so therefore, label them, drug them, shoot them, jail them, isolate them, but DON’T let them become a disruptive force in society. This is also true of the other more volatile sections mentioned above.

    So Lawrence when you say that “…Psychiatry’s main role now is thus to stop more and more able-bodied people from contributing to society…,” this completely misses the mark in not grasping psychiatry’s central role of “social control.”

    AND while “Slaying the Dragon” can make some good critical remarks about the myth of “mental illness,” his OVERALL analysis falls WAY SHORT of grasping an historical understanding of the actual power position and role that Psychiatry has in contemporary capitalist society, AND especially how it is being used to hold back social rebellion. He makes these errors because of his total uncritical worship of Thomas Szasz, which leads him to adopting the very same libertarian type political blind spots that plagued Szasz and prevented him from further advancing the anti-psychiatry cause when he was alive.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead and Frank and All

    The whole criticism of socialism as a “welfare state” is absurd.

    First off, socialism will work towards creating jobs for everyone, no matter what their abilities or limitations. There will be a clear social expectation that everyone who CAN work, WILL work. AND if you don’t work (when you have been provided a job you are able to do) then you DON’T get paid ANY financial support. (more on this in a moment)

    Under capitalism, the system by its very natures creates under employment and the capitalist owners extract a significant portion of PROFIT from the sale of the products that the workers create. While some people in the society “hit the lottery” and live quite comfortably in a high degree of wealth and consumerism, the broad masses struggle to survive from paycheck to paycheck (or from some type of assistance).

    Under capitalism, other than the the small minority who hit the financial lottery, there is VERY LITTLE motivation to work and/or be a law abiding citizen. This is because most people have some awareness of the inequalities and unfair nature of a system where a small percentage live very well off (and do very little work, if any) and the rest have to struggle daily and work and live in a state of powerlessness doing exploitative jobs and living in slums or economically depressed areas.

    Of course under capitalism there will always be people who feel beaten down (because many are) by the inherently unfair nature of the system, and they will be “content” (???) to live their life with various forms of assistance and never expect (or try to achieve better) during their lives in this class based profit system.

    We must ALWAYS defend people living under these forms of assistance because it is NOT their fault (especially in the collective sense) that they are stuck on the bottom rungs of society. And by supporting these people and their forms of public assistance (we help them survive) AND we can expose to the broad masses the exploitative nature and inherent inequalities in a capitalist system.

    Why have RESENTMENT towards people collecting assistance when they might otherwise be able to work? Do you really think they are “happy” to live this way? And doesn’t your criticisms of these people just reinforce the capitalist narrative that “there are people in the world who are lazy and not motivated to make something out of their lives”? AND that the capitalist narrative of “survival of the fittest” fits better with how THEY wish to characterize their self serving view of human nature.

    NOW YOU ASK (and some of you by now may be chopping on your bit), what about those people in a socialist society who are able to work, but refuse to do so, are you going to let them starve? Didn’t you just say above (more or less) that “if you don’t work under socialism you DON’T get paid”?

    Remember under socialism, there is collective ownership of all the major industries, the masses of people will have a genuine say (not the sham democracy we have under capitalism) in how government is run. Therefore, there should definitely be a QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT attitude and motivation among the people as to the way they approach working in jobs throughout society. The vast majority of people will now gladly work and reap the benefits of feeling productive and contributing to society AND being financially rewarded for their labor. They will now WANT to work, not try to avoid working, or somehow seek free assistance from the State.

    BUT, you ask, YEAH what about those people, who despite ALL the changes under socialism you describe, who STILL do not want to work (and are able to), are you going to let them starve???

    Of course not. But given all the major shifts in power relationships and attitudes in society, and the way social media will be promoting collective participation in work and governing, it WILL NOT be easy (nor should it be) for someone to now expect a “free ride” in a socialist society. There will now be ENORMOUS collective pressure (carried out in a very supportive and humane way) for EVERYONE to do what their abilities permit to contribute to society in order to receive some financial and other forms of assistance.

    Of course, all of these changes in society under socialism will DRAMATICALLY REDUCE the levels of stress and pressures in daily life that are the major causes of the extreme forms of psychological distress that leads people towards a so-called “mental health” system. This system will be completely dismantled and replace with other forms of genuine support for those needing help to cope with daily life.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    Thank you for clarifying your thinking on these questions. However…

    You said: “… but ultimately I’m stuck with the question, what has more chance of success at the moment, socialist revolution or reversing medicalization (i.e. the medical treatment of people who aren’t sick)?”

    This type of thinking is EXACTLY what leads most people and most movements into REFORMISM.

    We have no choice but to link all our current human rights struggles to the struggle to get rid of capitalism and replace it with socialism. The planet will NOT survive too many more decades of capitalism/imperialism. If nuclear war between competing Imperialists does not kill us all, then destruction of the environment certainly will.

    Do you you not believe this to be true AND are you willing to take the risks by NOT making socialist revolution a priority right along with building focused anti-psychiatry struggle?

    And do you not believe the masses of people are eventually capable of coming to an understanding that capitalism needs to be replaced?

    And you said: “Antipsychiatry can’t be linked to socialist revolution. I’m not waiting, in other words, for socialist revolution to end psychiatry.”

    Who said we should wait to vigorously organize struggle against Psychiatry? Not me; the key question is HOW do we wage this struggle to have the BEST chance of actually making meaningful change in the world, and NOT slipping into reformism and/or being co-opted by the System.

    I am afraid your approach (more single issue and narrowly oriented) has the highest probability of leading to reformism and co-optation.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    Every time I make a call for socialism to replace this outmoded and oppressive capitalist system you start talking about psychiatric oppression that allegedly existed under past socialist regimes. This history is debatable as to whether or not these were genuine socialist regimes that you are referring to when there were attacks on dissidents that involved the use of psychiatry.

    My point in my above comments is that today capitalism NEEDS Psychiatry (to continue its existence) as an INHERENT necessity to control certain potentially volatile sections of the masses. AND the ruling classes need Psychiatry to divert people’s attention away from the inherent inequalities in their system and have the masses focus on “personal flaws” and/or genetic defects and so-called mental “diseases.”

    Please tell me where is there an INHERENT need for the existence of the institution of Psychiatry in a socialist system? A genuine socialist system WANTS and ENCOURAGES the broad masses to become active for the interests of transforming the old class based capitalist system into one which gradually eliminates ALL class based inequalities, starting with the ownership of the means of production. The existence of Psychiatry is contrary to the interests of building a NEW socialist society.

    Frank, you made the statement: “Getting rid of capitalism, yeah, that, too, …”
    So obviously you are anti-capitalist. What do you call for capitalism’s replacement?

    Is not socialism the next step for humanity in building a more free and humane world? And WHY can’t committed and intelligent people who adhere to socialist ideology, thoroughly sum up the mistakes that were made in past socialist experiments, and re-chart a new course for the next round of socialist revolutions in coming years?

    Capitalism needs Psychiatry. A successful socialist revolution cannot ultimately advance and/or succeed with Psychiatry still around.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Susan

    I agree that Psychiatry will never be abolished under the capitalist system. Next to Executive branch of government in the U.S, Psychiatry is the ONLY other institution that can legally incarcerate (and drug) someone without due process of law. And when they do get some type of hearing a several days after incarceration, it usually is a complete sham, and psychiatric victims rarely win those decisions.

    Psychiatry has now become such an integral part of how this System controls and demoralizes people, that it has become TOO BIG AND IMPORTANT to be allowed to fail or go out of existence. The future existence of Psychiatry is inseparably bound to the future existence of the entire capitalist/imperialist empire.

    However, that being said, that DOES NOT mean we should WAIT for the fall of this capitalist system to call for the abolishment of Psychiatry.

    On the contrary, calling for the abolishment of Psychiatry, as part a broader struggle against ALL forms of psychiatric abuse, can become a major tributary of struggle (like the women’s movement, Black Lives Matter, environmental movement etc) that gathers more and more people to see how inherently unjust and bankrupt life under capitalism truly is – as are all the institutions, like Psychiatry, that prop up and maintain this system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Susan

    Thank you for this book review and for bringing a Marxist class analysis into the discussion of psychiatric oppression.

    We live in a world dominated by capitalism/imperialism and the inherent class inequalities, daily traumas, and the on going imperialist competition between nation states leading to constant war and plunder.

    I agree with some of your assessment of strengths and weaknesses in this book. However, the following paragraph is confusing at the very least, and definitely wrong if my understanding of its meaning is correct:

    “Ferguson rejects the call to abolish psychiatry because it can be used to cut needed programs. The only alternative is to reform psychiatry so that it offers a more humane response to people in crisis. While this is definitely worth fighting for, how it might be achieved under capitalism is not explained.”

    Yes, most welfare type systems and other support systems should always be defended, because the capitalist system WILL NOT AND CANNOT support the needs of the masses. And waging struggle to support them is just one way to expose the inherent inequality and nature of exploitation under capitalism.

    However, Psychiatry is an overall oppressive institution, and serves a clear social control role in society, especially targeting the more volatile and potentially rebellious sections in society. The programs that Psychiatry (like community mental health clinics etc.) run for the general masses are OVERWHELMINGLY used as a form of oppression with prolific amounts of labeling and drugging, and often far worse forms of incarceration etc. We should ALL want these programs to fail and be disbanded.

    Targeting Psychiatry (and the highly profitable pharmaceutical industry it colludes with) as an important tool of capitalist oppression, and calling for its abolition, is just one more way to educate the masses about the true nature of this System.

    All this can help set the stage for the necessary in depth discussions of what the strengths and weaknesses were of the first round of socialist Revolutions (Russia and China etc.) that were ultimately defeated.

    No great social experiments succeed on the first try. We must learn from those historic efforts and prepare for a new round of class struggle. It is becoming more and more obvious to more people that capitalism is NOT the highest pinnacle of human social organization and needs to be replaced; socialism, as the alternative, is being reconsidered by a growing minority . This planet cannot survive the current system much longer.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • registeredforthissite

    You have put forward many insights into the oppressive nature of psychiatric abuse.

    HOWEVER, in order to someday end all this abuse, we must find answers to the following questions (whether or not it disturbs your current sensibilities):

    1) What is Psychiatry?
    2) How did it get here?
    3) What role (and for whom) does it serve in society?
    4) And finally, how do we get rid of it?

    In order to truly answer these questions, it REQUIRES that we address these broader issues that you seem to be saying are extraneous.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Slaying the Dragon

    Thank you for the response.

    You ask: “What has Donald Trump to do with any of this?”

    For me and many other people on the Left, Trump and those people in power aligned with him, represent a dividing line question in today’s world. Meaning, he represents a significant leap in our society towards Fascism. This is a serious threat to a qualitative reduction in personal liberty and freedom of expression and the right to dissent.

    For these reasons I could not, and would not, under any circumstances knowingly work with some one (or any organization) that supports the Trump agenda. And as an aside (as I’ve stated in other comments) I put Scientology in the same category of a group I will not knowingly work with for related, but somewhat different, reasons.

    And since I believe it will be essential in the future (in order to be successful) for the anti-psychiatry movement to work along side other Human Rights struggles and activists, such as women, minority activists, environmentalists etc., any connection to the Trump agenda (and those supporting it) would represent a serious impediment to these sort of alliances.

    Having stated why this is a dividing line question, this does NOT mean that I support any other political candidates or bourgeois political parties. I do not believe any substantial systemic changes in society can take place within a profit based/capitalist system.

    And finally, I believe any emerging vanguard type anti-psychiatry organization must, as a precondition, have a general anti-system orientation, in order to play a FULL ROLE pushing forward the struggle.

    Of course there probably will emerge many other groups opposing various aspects of the “mental health” system that should be supported, but they will not necessarily take advanced positions on bigger issues and therefore not play a vanguard type role.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I do not believe my question is unfair or inappropriate here. “Slaying the Dragon” has a very worked out analysis of Psychiatry and psychiatric abuse in society. He also has his own website and presents himself as some type of “leader” in this struggle and wants people to follow along with him on this path.

    Why is it unfair that I want to ask exactly where he wants to take us and how he proposes we get there?

    And Oldhead, does this mean you believe in the slogan “unite all who can be united,” and exactly how is my interpretation of the slogan different?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    You raise an important question here. I don’t think I underestimate the number of those harmed by Psychiatry nor the power of such a movement, IF it is organized and grows in strength.

    But, if you believe this movement can go it alone in today’s world, then I believe you are underestimating how critically important it is for those in power to have Psychiatry as an instrument of control especially using labels and drugs to silence the more volatile and rebellious sections of this society. AND the importance to the economy that the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex plays given its historic levels of profit.

    The depth of the this oppression and how it serves this profit based system requires important allies in other Human Rights struggle for us to be successful in the long term.

    And all this means recognizing the high number of women and minorities who are controlled and damaged by Psychiatry’s broad reach in society. AND consciously educating people about all the connections and seeking allies AND alliances within these movements (such as Black Lives Matter, Women’s Movement, Me Too Movement, Environmental Movement, etc.).

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Slaying the Dragon

    Are these not fair and important questions given the turbulence of the times and way lines are being drawn in the world?

    Apparently Oldhead doesn’t want to hear the answers, but there are probably many others here who would find it interesting to know your broader political perspective on what it will take to end psychiatric oppression in the world. This includes knowing the necessary political alliances needed to accomplish this goal.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Slaying the Dragon

    Let me rephrase my questions:

    1)Is Donald Trump (and in general his supporters) a friend to those people wishing to end all forms of psychiatric abuse?
    2) Is Donald Trump (and in general his supporters) a friend to those people wishing to promote genuine science in the world, as opposed to pseudoscience?
    3) Should MIA readers who want to end all types of Human Rights violations in the world support Donald Trump?
    4) and finally, Does supporting Donald Trump advance the progress of humanity, as a whole, or hold it back and possibly make it worse?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The following comment by “Slaying the Dragon” in many ways concentrates everything that is wrong with the term, “scientism”:

    “Pseudo-science naturally emerges in an age of scientism.”

    Here you have someone with an overall Right Wing political perspective complaining about the rise of enlightened science that has seriously questioned many fundamental beliefs promoted by the established ruling elites in the age of capitalism.

    That is, science (as applied to the history of human social systems) has questioned the permanence of class based systems where capitalism is accepted as the highest pinnacle of human social organization.

    This includes questioning the current social status of the working classes, people of color, ethic minorities, different sexual identities, and women etc.

    This is quite similar to the political struggle that emerged in the period in history when the Devine Right of Kings and Queens to rule over the peasantry was being questioned.

    Science, has also been used to deconstruct the major precepts of religion and its conservative pull on the masses of people to not question the current Order of things, and to wait for salvation in the hereafter. (BTW, I am aware that not all religious people are cemented in that view. I am referring to broadly accepted religious beliefs here)

    So with this Right Wing outlook promoted by “Slaying the Dragon”, science (and its application by human beings who do NOT believe in a “natural order” of things) is somehow blamed (using the code word “scientism”) for every major political movement of the masses that is seriously challenging the status quo and/or threatens the major tenants of Establishment thinking.

    Pseudo-science in this historical era has NOT emerged because of “scientism” (a code word for being “too scientific” when science somehow exposes that the “Emperor has no cloths”).

    Pseudoscience in this historical era has FAR MORE connections to those people and institutions that currently control our society and are threatened by those that question the permanence of this Oder of things.

    This is where Psychiatry comes in as a vital means of social control in society maintaining the status quo. It plays an important role in encouraging people to look at “genetic theories of original sin” as the source of our problems and not examine the institutional structures of society that perpetuate daily forms of trauma on people.

    “Slaying the Dragon” would have us believe that Psychiatry is some sort of “evil” force in the world ABSTRACTED from the inherent inequalities in the institutions that exist in a profit/class based system.

    It is no accident that he has adopted the name “Slaying the Dragon” (when it comes to criticizing Psychiatry) because he is stuck in an outmoded way of thinking that accepts some sort of “natural order” of things in the world based on CENTURIES OLD ways of thinking. Hence the need for a “Dragon Slayer” to come to our rescue and root out this “Evil.”

    “Scientism” has too many meanings and interpretations to be of any use to those forces in society deconstructing Psychiatry and all its abuses in society. And it too often is used as a code word by those like “Slaying the Dragon” who wish to promote a Right Wing perspective on the way forward in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Dragon Slayer

    While I commend your ability to use both logic and elements of the scientific method to deconstruct the oppressive nature of Psychiatry, I am astounded by your willingness to abandon science when it comes to understanding global warming.

    And I am very intrigued to know what is your scientific appraisal of the Trump regime and its political agenda?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Please see my related comment to Frank, below.

    You said: “I think “Scientism” is more of a religious belief system where there are “smart” people who “know science” and we can be “smart” too if we just agree with them and do what they say, and we don’t have to think about it too hard…as it involves the development of religious/philosophical dedication to a set of dogma…”

    When you said “…”Scientism” is more of a religious belief system…”, I think you are correct and actually making my point here.

    When people use the label of “Scientism” to discredit people’s dependence and reliance on science to make choices in the world, they are basing this criticism on unproven assumptions and/or faith. They are NOT making a critical analysis of what is legitimate science, and what may be some form of pseudoscience.

    If people are NOT understanding, and/or, NOT employing science correctly, this is NOT “scientism” (which is a nonsensical and controversial term), this IS people simply being UNSCIENTIFIC.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You are continuing the confusion in terminology here.

    You said: “…what I find worrisome, that is, the religion of science. Science is not belief, a faith, but scientism is belief, and a faith.”

    The word religion simply CANNOT ever be correctly applied to ANY aspect of Science. They are polar opposites. Science is based on known facts and a methodology of seeking truth through experimentation and examining processes going on in the material world.

    Religion is based on FAITH, and is not intended, nor can it be, based on facts in the real world. Most religious people would agree with its total emphasis on FAITH. And if they do believe it is based on facts, it up to them to prove those facts.

    Religious people may believe, with a deeply held feeling of certainty, in this FAITH, but it cannot ever be proven with facts and/or the scientific method. And in fact, most religious people don’t care to seek any material form or external proof of their inner faith.

    The above statements are not meant as any kind of put down of religious people, they are simply facts about how people feel attached to their religious belief systems.

    Frank, you said:

    “…Is science partial to maintaining the status quo? Not in and of itself. However it is being funded by, and serving corporate interests…”

    Science is always neutral. However, how science is used (and for what purpose) in the world, is NOT neutral. And when science is used to hold back the forward progress of humanity, this is NOT “scientism.” This is simply the reactionary and oppressive use of science to exploit and/or harm people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You are continuing the confusing and contradictory use of terminology. As a result SCIENCE is totally losing its meaning here. You continue to make the case for abandoning the term “scientism.”

    You said: “Apples and oranges, different levels. It [Psychiatry] is very scientific in its machinations of social repression and public deception…”

    This is NOT science you are talking about here. These are devious and well designed and highly crafted public relations strategies to maintain control and power over people and influence broader public opinion.

    You said: “The quotes around science are confusing as to whether or not you are being ironic in some way, but I think most people in distress would prefer compassion to “science.”

    I was not being ironic here, but only putting emphasis on the fact that Sami Timimi was promoting the USE OF SCIENCE as a means to determine those kinds of support systems that provide the best help for people, AND I am quite confident that those positive supports would be based in “compassion.”

    I am surprised you don’t get the big problem with how these terms are being used.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “I think the term “scientism” is useful in describing the manner in which psychiatry appropriates the trappings of science…Actually if psychiatry itself were “more scientific” in pursuing its goals it would be even more dangerous.”

    The above two sentences actually makes a strong case for the essence of my argument on how confusing the use of the term “scientism” is, and how it potentially leads us away from our goal of ending Psychiatry.

    Your phrase “…if psychiatry itself were “more scientific”” is in its essence, an oxymoron.

    Psychiatry by its very nature (and definition) is not “scientific,” in fact we can say it is both “anti-science” and “anti-people.” So therefore, common logic tells us that it is virtually impossible for psychiatry to EVER become “more scientific.”

    The very author of above blog that defines Psychiatry as being an example of “scientism” uses the following phrases in his final paragraphs:

    “Paying attention to the science tells us that we need to look beyond just a focus on formal services…. The science has already pointed to what is likely to be most helpful to people who suffer mental distress.”

    Here again comes the confusion with terms, because the author (Sami Timimi) is CORRECTLY calling for MORE “science” to help solve the problems for people going through intense psychological distress.

    Get rid the of the term “scientism, if it is causing this much confusion within our own ranks, imagine how confused newcomers might feel in such a discussion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    When I referenced the different political viewpoints that use (and I believe everyone misuses it no matter what their politics) the word “scientism,” I was not referring to “liberalism” and “conservatism,” They are essentially flip sides of the same coin that seek to maintain the present status quo in the world, with only very slight differences in how this profit and class based society should be organized.

    Science (as a methodology and body of accumulated knowledge) has no partiality to anything other than the “truth” or (in different words) to a potentially better method for humans (IF correctly applied) to understand the world and THUS be in a better position to change it, hopefully for the better.

    The use of the term “scientism,” on the other hand, because it ultimately degrades and undermines people’s belief in science and the scientific method (regardless of who uses the term to describe science), IS partial to maintaining and/or defending the status quo in the world. This is DESPITE the subjective intentions of those using the term.

    Since science, when correctly understood and applied in the world to make things BETTER for ALL of humanity, is a serious challenge to those defending the status quo, it is important for the ruling classes to ONLY use science in a very limited and pragmatic way to serve their class interests.

    Again, because this a complicated and potentially contentious struggle over philosophical concepts and terminology, it is best to avoid this term when taking on Psychiatry. We have plenty of great language to critically analyze and totally deconstruct Psychiatry and hasten its demise into the dustbin of history.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Steve

    Please read my other new comment. “Pseudoscience” is quite sufficient to describe pseudoscience.”

    You said: ” I do not want to concede the definition of “scientism” to the “establishment;”…”

    Unfortunately, when you use the term “scientism” you will be often “conceding” to the Establishment. The Right Wing and those in the Establishment holding positions of power (in science and other areas) often use the term “scientism” to undercut and ridicule those using science to change the world.

    I do believe it is worth engaging in a very deep theorectical and political struggle over the role of the word “scientism” in the world. But to throw it into the mix now as as if it is a valuable term to criticize and deconstruct Psyciaitry, will be very confusing and misguided at this time.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    Thanks for the response. And I agreed with your comment up until these last two sentences.

    You said: “I suppose it comes down to the need to conduct a critical analysis of science, and to subscribe to scientific findings that are credible, to expose those that are not as pseudoscientific, and to call out the promotion of bad science as fact as scientism. And on that note, I fully agree with Dr. Timimi that much of what is currently considered by society, professionals, and clients as valid psychiatric theory and practice is based on scientism.”

    I say stop using “scientism” altogether. It is too confusing, contradictory, and controversial in meaning, and it renders the word useless and counterproductive when deconstructing Psychiatry.

    Science is what it is – it is science. Science CANNOT be “scientism.”

    Pseudoscience is pseudoscience, that is, “pretend science” not based on the accurate use of the scientific method. Corrupted science is science that has been corrupted through the use of false data or methodology, etc. etc. etc.

    Reductionism is reductionism, that is, drawing scientific conclusions from limited data that will not stand the test of time or scientific scrutiny on a macro level.

    Reductionism and all other bastardized versions of science can reflect a level of ignorance and/or serves the subjective, nefarious, and often political desires of those claiming to be scientific.

    We should continue to use the terms “pseudoscience,” “corrupted science,” and “reductionism” because they have a clear meaning and are universally accepted by almost everyone using these terms.

    “Scientism” is a very controversial concept that has multiple meanings NOT universally accepted by most scientists or other critical thinkers. There are well respected scientists who believe there is such a thing as “scientism,” and there are also many other highly respected and accomplished scientists who believe that the use of the term “scientism” is wrong and/or misleading.

    And while the word “scientism” is sometimes used by both sides of the current political spectrum in the world, it is often used by the Right Wing as a way to undercut the value and role of science in understanding and transforming a fundamentally unjust world.

    The use of the word “scientism” to describe Psychiatry is again, very confusing and counterproductive to the goal of ending all forms of Psychiatric abuse in the world, along with the material conditions in the world that give rise to, and nutures its existence.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To All

    The last several comments have raised some important questions about the use of the term “SCIENTISM.”

    This blog has some great exposure of the pseudoscience of Psychiatry, but its title and continued use of the word “SCIENTISM” is contradictory and confusing at best, and TOTALLY distracts from its essential content.

    From Webster’s Dictionary: (BTW, I am not endorsing this definition))

    “Definition of scientism
    1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
    2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)”

    When it comes to analyzing and criticizing Psychiatry (or any form of oppression in the world) we need “more science,” not less. And you can’t be “too scientific” when trying to understand and transform the world into a more humane place to live.

    The historical debate regarding the term “SCIENTISM” is hotly contested in the world today, and some people would say (myself included) that its misuse is essentially a way to discredit and undermine (sometimes in very subtle ways) the role of science in the world. To accurately explain my position on this question would require an entire blog (and more), and is perhaps something I will attempt in the future.

    But for now, I am strongly suggesting that to continue using the term ” SCIENTISM” is both confusing and counterproductive when trying to criticize and deconstruct the pseudoscience of Psychiatry.

    And finally, with all of the efforts in this blog to take on the pseudoscience of Psychiatry and its bogus terminology, WHY, WHY WHY are people (and this author) still calling psychiatric drugs “MEDICATIONS.”

    If there is no disease or underlying cellular abnormality related to psychological distress, why allow Psychiatry to get away with calling all their mind altering (and quite often mind destroying) drugs, some type of “medication” ???

    Psychiatry, while colluding with Big Pharma, have spent hundreds of billions of dollars over 5 decades convincing the world that they are a medical specialty dispensing “medications” to the masses. Why concede to them the use of this language and “enable” them to get over with this charade. Challenging AND changing language is an important part of making positive change in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Good blog.

    To add to your above point, it is hard to expect people, especially children, to accept authority and obey rules in an overall society that is perceived (often in more primitive ways even by very young children) as unfair, unequal, hypocritical, overly authoritarian, and down right exploitative in most relationships encountered in their world. There are real material reasons for the rebelliousness of children in an unjust world; its not just a natural consequence of their youthfulness.

    Many of today’s children and teenagers that end up being drugged are exactly the type of youth who rose up in rightious rebellion in the 1960’s. Psychiatry and their Disease/Drug Based paradigm of “treatment, serves an important function in today’s world by suppressing dissent from the very sections of society most likely to rise up in resistance against the injustices in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    Yes, sometimes the “slavery” analogy is misused. This is especially the case when the person using such an analogy is not historically aware of the degree of human oppression experienced in the institution of slavery in the U.S. and other parts of the world.

    When the slavery analogy is misused it is our job to challenge people as we do with ALL other forms of historical inaccuracies.

    That being said, historically there have been, and still are many “higher forms” of human slavery. And in these situations this kind of analogy can be very important to use in order to challenge and educate people about just how far humanity has to go in order to free ourselves from all forms of oppression.

    As I pointed out in a prior comment, the remnants of slavery in the U.S. were still very much embodied in the sharecropping system in the South, and this was clearly a “higher form” of slavery.

    Just remember how valuable the writings of Karl Marx (and his followers) are, with his penetrating historical analysis of the emergence of various forms of “wage slavery” which still hold back the nature of freedom for the working classes in the world, and the advance of society beyond the human horrors related to Imperialist domination, with its endless wars for Empire and profit.

    And Uprising, it is very important not to forget that when this struggle around this slavery analogy question first arose at MIA it was HEAVILY infused with a major theme of “Identity Politics.” If “Identity Politics” is allowed to dominate and control any political website or organization trying to make positive change in the world, it will ultimately destroy those efforts, and be a major setback for our movement.

    So Uprising, I am saying there are many important reasons to not let such language and/or analogies be banned or eliminated. It is our job to make sure that this language is not used inappropriately. And you have done a good job so far on this front when these problems have emerged.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    I applaud the fact that you have decided to reengage in the important dialogues in the comment sections in your blogs. I have especially found your dialogue with Steve McCrea helpful in clarifying your positions on very complex and controversial topics in the “mental health” arena.

    You said: “I wish people would stop using our blogs as an excuse to bash psychiatry and diagnostic labels(which we also dislike).”

    I think this is an unfair and one sided summation of what has taken place at MIA in response to your past blogs. I think you need to take some responsibility (in some instances) for a lack of clarity on certain issues and, at times, an OVEREMPHASIS in your writings on the role of nutrition in resolving the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness.”

    Some people have raised some very important issues to be considered when viewing this research into the role of nutrition, especially as it relates to trauma and other stressors in children’s environmental experience. And there have been times when you have been overly defensive, and viewed any serious questions as simply “inappropriate” attacks.

    I believe that Dragon Slayer has raised some important issues here, but I do NOT accept his conclusion that the essence of your work is somehow “coercive psychiatry in another form.” It is too bad that we can’t sort out the “wheat from the chaff.”

    I support the value of your research and efforts in area of nutrition, but also believe it is vitally important that the certain conclusions drawn from this work get presented in a way that does not mislead people about the priorities of what needs to take place in the world to create a more safe and secure environment for children.

    In a past blog I attempted to raise some of these important issues of clarification AND emphasis, and may have been unfairly lumped in as a naysayer and “inappropriate” critic of your work. Here is my comment which was never responded to:

    “Hi Bonnie”

    “You said: “…our research has helped put on the map the idea that mental health problems CAN be addressed through nutrition, offering an alternative to our current approaches.”

    “What exactly is meant by this statement, especially your emphasis on the word “CAN”? I am a firm believer in science and the scientific method. I support your efforts at researching the value of nutrition as a valuable “aid” to recovery, but I believe it can be harmful and even dangerous to exaggerate its meaning if not backed up by proven science.”

    “In my comment above I stated the following:
    “And more importantly, RECOVERY from these negative and harmful experiences in life must ultimately be UNDERSTOOD AND ADDRESSED in each person”s own experience and timetable for recovery. This may, or may not, require therapy, but most certainly will require A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT to nurture one’s recovery.”

    “It is here where good nutrition and gut health may be an important ENHANCEMENT or ADDITIONAL SUPPORT for such recovery by aiding a more suitable INTERNAL BODY ENVIRONMENT for such recovery, but NOT the PRINCIPLE MEANS for such recovery to take place.”

    “A person in recovery will STILL have to address the original traumas that began their conflict with their environment AND the subsequent traumas that took place when they encountered AN OPPRESSIVE “MENTAL HEALTH” SYSTEM that added to, and reinforced, earlier traumas. There can be no SUBSTITUTE OR SHORTCUT for doing this work.”

    “Could you please respond to my point about what will most often be the “principle means” for recovery from “mental health” issues? And could you justify not using quotations when using the term “mental health?”

    “Respectfully, Richard”

    Bonnie, please keep writing and engaging in these discussions. This dialogue is vitally important, even when things get feisty and, at times, difficult to navigate. We cannot change such an unjust world without these forms of scientific and political struggle.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • To all

    One small but important way to fight against the system that killed Stan’s son is to stop calling psychiatric drugs “medications.” These are mind altering drugs that have many toxic “main” and “side” effects that harm the human body, especially if taken for long periods of time.

    Real medications treat real diseases and other cellular abnormalities in the human body. Psychiatry and Big Pharma have spent hundreds of billions of dollars convincing the public that their psychiatric drugs are actual “medications.” Let’s stop letting them get away with this deadly unscientific charade.

    Changing language is a big part of making systemic and paradigm changes in the world. Let’s start now!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • littleturtle

    I will repeat a comment I made to you in a recent blog; perhaps you missed it:

    “You are looking at the role of “biology” in human behavior in a mechanical way. To promote the standard refrain of “bio/psycho/social,” is to remain stuck in a paradigm of thought that represents everything wrong with the status quo’s version of what actually represents the very fluid concept of human nature.

    After all, every Biological Psychiatrist will gladly parrot the “bio/psycho/social” refrain. And we also have to ask the question, why is “bio” ALWAYS listed first in this particular meaningless refrain? We do know that based on any careful examination of the way modern Psychiatry functions in the world, is that they pretty much all practice a “bio/bio/bio” approach in the real world.

    I suggest you read some of Robert Sapolsky’s (well known neuroscientist and primatologist) writings, including his short article titled “Peace Among Primates.” Here is a quote from that essay:

    “To an overwhelming extent, the age-old “nature versus nurture” debate is silly. The action of genes is completely intertwined with the environment in which they function; in a sense, it is pointless to even discuss what gene X does, and we should consider instead only what gene X does in environment Y. Nonetheless, if one had to predict the behavior of some organism on the basis of only one fact, one might still want to know whether the most useful fact would be about genetics or about the environment.”

    In this essay he clearly shows a real life example where “environment” clearly trumps (sorry for the use of this word) other factors in the ultimate determination of what are the primary behavioral influences within an on going culture of a particular subset of primates.

    All this provides some very important “food for thought” when we ponder what is going on in the world and how we should go about finding the best solutions for the most vexing problems facing humanity.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Yes, all of Psychiatry is based on unscientific premises and has a dark history since its inception.

    Biological Psychiatry is just its latest and dominant incarnation, and historically it represents the worst of Psychiatry on steroids.

    While there are a tiny minority of psychiatrists that help people in the world, it is NOT because they are performing “psychiatric” forms of “treatment.”

    If psychiatrists do help some people, it is because they are listening to people and providing some sort of emotional support. This has nothing to do with their medical credentials or medical services.

    Today, the only exception would be those psychiatrists who have done serous research into safe psychiatric drug tapering protocols, and use their medical credential to aid people in their efforts to taper off of, and/or reduce their dependency on psychiatric drugs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I will add a few points to my above critical analysis of this blog.

    Scott said: “All antidepressants have the same meager level of effectiveness over a placebo for treating depression (they do much better for anxiety).”

    This blog has left out one of Psychiatry’s and Big Pharma’s biggest crimes to date, and that is the worldwide benzodiazepine disaster. This has harmed millions of people around the world.

    And to suggest that anti-depressants are a successful “treatment” for anxiety is misleading at best, and it fails to show its intimate connection to the benzo disaster.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Scott and all

    Is this blog not just another attempt to resurrect and repurpose Psychiatry with the focus now on a new form of chemical intervention on the human species? I share Bonnie’s and other commenters’ concerns here.

    While this blog has some positive exposure of what is wrong with the chemical imbalance theory and its’ practice in the dominant paradigm of so-called “treatment,” it fails to escape the philosophical and scientific underpinnings of Biological Psychiatry.

    Scott said:
    “Once we embrace the power of a living system to heal and ADAPT [my emphasis], a range of other implications also emerge…In short, this MDMA study has the far-reaching implications that will transform mental health care and our view of the human psyche. The inner healer will become the new paradigm for mental health. Psychiatrists will move from being managers of medication to healers.”

    The above quote totally leaves out the role of the environment as a central determining factor in human thought and behavior. In order to create a world free of extreme forms of psychological distress, we must move in the direction of creating a material world free from the all the forms of physical and psychological trauma that are rooted in multiple forms of inequalities in the world.

    NO, we don’t want to just learn how to better “ADAPT” to all this madness. What about the necessity to “TRANSFORM” the world and ourselves in the process of identifying and changing those things in our environment that cause and/or trigger thoughts and behaviors that get labeled as “mental illness.”

    Yes, MDMA may have a limited role in helping some people suffering from post traumatic distress. However, we do NOT need new ways to “medicalize” the human condition and essentially preserve the status quo by helping people “adapt” better to an unjust world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    I agree with the following points:

    “*One is to get better at wrapping our minds around all the research that is now showing that adverse experiences and trauma typically plays a crucial role in throwing people into the states we call mental illness.
    * A second is noticing how trauma throws us into the zone where we face the big spiritual questions. This means recognizing that trauma and mental health and spirituality are all very related.”

    And I also like the way you shared your own “Revolution” as you experienced a journey through recovery from past trauma and abuse. You have many valuable insights.

    HOWEVER, what you failed to mention in this article (and something that is extremely important) is the fact that when people go through these watershed/crisis type periods in their lives, they are VERY VULNERABLE and quite susceptible to being sucked into cults, such as the Moonies or Scientology, or perhaps some of the more fringe/extremist type churches.

    In fact, many such groups PREY on people who are going through these periods in their life as great recruiting opportunities. And subsequent experiences in these groups can only make things WORSE for people searching for understanding and meaning in their life at these critical periods.

    Ron, you said:

    “A second approach is the one Richard Dawkins took in his book The God Delusion: just dismiss all of spirituality as mental dysfunction!”

    Another problem I had with this blog is how you completely dismissed Richard Dawkins and his very valuable book the “The God Delusion.”

    In my mind there are two separate definitions of “spirituality.” One is the unscientific belief of a spiritual world separate from the material world (God, Heaven, Hell, The Devil etc.)

    Another definition involves a search for meaning in life outside ourselves in various higher forms of human connectiveness, perhaps including in group efforts to transform the world into a better place. I subscribe to this latter definition.

    In your blog, your references to “heaven” and the “Devil” implied these concepts really exist in the real world, and that they have no problems connected to their acceptance as truths in the world. You are avoiding the fact that the historical role of religion’s role in promoting the belief in “original sin” and the Devil” have played an ENORMOUS role in the actual origins of many people’s profound conflicts with their environment that ultimately end up in some forms thoughts and behaviors that get labeled “mental illness.”

    It is very understandable why many people going through these crises might identify with and/or see themselves as “Jesus” or “God.” After all, many people in these positions have endured an enormous amount of suffering (through trauma and other forms of oppression) and very much identify with the story of Jesus whose story embodies the theme of suffering and then dying “for our sin” etc.

    So Ron, I am giving you a mixed review of this blog and hope you are open to such feedback.

    Richard

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    I would never suggest we should tell Scientology people to “go home” if they show up at a demo. If they tried to take over the character of the event by rushing to the front with their banners or some other such action, I would call them out as being “opportunist”, and make every effort to move away from their presence in the particular event.

    I am ,however, definitely saying that we should do everything possible to not have them involved in or to become a part of any organizational apparatus. This probably, by necessity, involves having organizational discussions, and/or a set of principles of unity, that carefully outlines who we will, or will not, work with in our organizational strategy.

    And of course, we should answer, honestly, any and all inquiries (briefly, as I mentioned above) that people might raise about our affiliation with any group, especially, Scientology.

    As for NAMI LEADERS, I don’t believe they would want to show up at any demonstrations or events that target Psychiatry. And if the leaders did show up, their presence at the event would most likely be as a counter action AGAINST us.

    As for NAMI RANK AND FILE members, I would hope for them to show up, for it would be an opportunity to expose and educate these people about the harmful nature of Psychiatry and those organizations (like MAMI) conspiring with and “enabling” the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To all:

    And BTW, not everyone who raises the issue of Scientology is trying to misdirect a discussion. Many people have heard that Scientology is somehow connected to the anti-psychiatry movement and may honestly want to know if this particular group is somehow connected. To view these inquiries as always contentious, and thus avoid answering the question, also creates more problems.

    The simplest solution is to be upfront and truthful in the briefest way possible by saying:

    “No, Scientology is a dangerous cult and I (and/or “we”) don’t associate with them”

    End of story; issue resolved!!!

    People who can’t or won’t make the above statement now confront either of the following issues:

    1) They have not correctly summed up the negative role of Scientology in the history of the movement against psychiatric abuse.
    2) Remain agnostic about the true nature of Scientology and don’t see the importance of understanding their true role in the world.
    3) Fall into a potentially dangerous form of pragmatism (of seeking harmful allies) when it comes to developing a political strategy to end psychiatric abuse.
    4) Are apologists and/or sympathizers with Scientology (having not done appropriate investigation into the above points).
    5) Or, they are outright members of Scientology and are hiding their affiliation.

    People who believe this is a distracting issue, or somehow not important enough to discuss at this time, don’t understand how pervasive Scientology (and all the issues associated with them) will become as our movement progresses beyond its current level of infancy.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Keep writing and speaking out. As the only psychiatrist at MIA (and possibly among only a handful in the world) to take up a more radical ANTI-psychiatry type position, you are in a unique position to provoke a much needed discussion about these critical questions. Just take a look at the length of the comment section in this blog. And your other blogs have been equally as provocative in a good way.

    While I do not agree with the thrust of your main theme in this particular blog (as I stated way back in the comment section) this blog has advanced a number of important debates in out movement, such as:
    1) How do we assess the historical role of Freud?
    2) What does it mean to be “anti-psychiatry?
    3) Does “mental illness” exist”
    4) What is the role of “biology” in determining human thought and behavior?
    5) How do we sum up the strengths and weaknesses of Szasz’s contributions to the struggle against all forms of psychiatric abuse?
    6) What is the role of Scientology in this movement and should we allow ourselves to work with them or any of their front groups?

    These are all very important questions and hopefully this discussion in some way, both highlights the key issues of debate, and gets some of us closer to a more unified position.

    Carry on!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “What we’re talking about is falling into a trap of getting defensive any time anti-psychiatry is equated with Scientology.”

    Tell me, how the hell is it being defensive to tell someone the following statement?

    “No, we have no connections to Scientology; we believe they are a dangerous cult. And why are you using Scientology to divert this discussion?”

    I’d say that is both a very TRUTHFUL and OFFENSIVE response.

    And it is simply comprised of just 2 short sentences, with a total of 24 words. It completely ends the Scientology discussion once and for all.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I can’t believe you have missed the point I am making here.

    Frank says he will work with anybody (regardless of their political beliefs or actions) who opposes forced treatment.

    I have repeatedly stated that certain lines (as to who we can unite with) need to drawn when doing this work, and that Scientology and their front groups represents one of those lines.

    So Oldhead, please answer the following question: if the KKK opposed forced treatment, would you agree to work with them? And if not, why not?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Sounds like Freud was presenting a very static view of human nature that is also very much promoted by all the ruling elites in the world.

    This forms their justification for why capitalism corresponds to the so-called essential part of the human nature of all human beings. And that this is the best and highest form of human organization that people should expect in this world.

    Freud, obviously grew up during the time of Karl Marx and was exposed to his brilliant historical analysis of a class based society in the rise of capitalism. He obviously rejected this analysis because his ideas are in major conflict with the essence of Marxism and a class bassed analysis..

    What is the difference between saying that some people have so-called “mental disorders” (or “mental illness”) and/or saying that we all have them? All of this is abstracted from the material conditions in the world that give rise to certain patterns of thinking and behavior.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Another would clearly be the sharecropping system in the South that immediately followed the end of the Civil War. While Black people were no longer slaves, they were still enslaved to the remnants of the plantation system in a highly exploitative relationship with the large land owners. President Jackson removed the troops from the South which opened the door for the emerging KKK to run amuck and terrorize the people.

    Report comment

  • littleturtle

    You are looking at the role of “biology” in human behavior in a mechanical way. To promote the standard refrain of “bio/psycho/social,” is to remain stuck in a paradigm of thought that represents everything wrong with the status quo’s version of what actually represents the very fluid concept of human nature.

    After all, every Biological Psychiatrist will gladly parrot the “bio/psycho/social” refrain. And we also have to ask the question, why is “bio” ALWAYS listed first in this particular meaningless refrain? We do know that based on any careful examination of the way modern Psychiatry functions in the world, is that they pretty much all practice a “bio/bio/bio” approach in the real world.

    I suggest you read some of Robert Sapolsky’s (well known neuroscientist and primatologist) writings, including his short article titled “Peace Among Primates.” Here is a quote from that essay:

    “To an overwhelming extent, the age-old “nature versus nurture” debate is silly. The action of genes is completely intertwined with the environment in which they function; in a sense, it is pointless to even discuss what gene X does, and we should consider instead only what gene X does in environment Y. Nonetheless, if one had to predict the behavior of some organism on the basis of only one fact, one might still want to know whether the most useful fact would be about genetics or about the environment.”

    In this essay he clearly shows a real life example where “environment” clearly trumps (sorry for the use of this word) other factors in the ultimate determination of what are the primary behavioral influences within an on going culture of a particular subset of primates.

    All this provides some very important “food for thought” when we ponder what is going on in the world and how we should go about finding the best solutions for the most vexing problems facing humanity.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    Think about where Scientology gets its money? What is the essence of the relationship that its members have with the Mother organization?

    According to former members, it is the exact opposite of freedom, and based on “higher forms” of mind control backed by multiple forms of emotional trauma and at times physical abuse.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    You said: “You are letting your personal feeling get in the way of rational discussion,….You seem to be more looking for a forum to promote your view than the best tactics to stop a distracting attack on a rational critique of psychiatry.”

    My position on Scientology (and who we should allow ourselves to be allied with) is quite rational and based on summing up a long history of many prior political movements trying to change the world into a better place. I am not putting any kind of personal agenda above the important political decisions that must be decided in the course of building a successful human rights struggle.

    Any serious examination of the history of the movement against psychiatric abuse would reveal that prior associations with Scientology by Thomas Szasz, and more remotely by Peter Breggin, were tactical mistakes that damaged the credibility of their positions and aided our opposition in marginalizing our emerging movement.

    It is clear to me that Robert Whitaker and MIA have learned from that history and have made it a point to avoid any associations with Scientology. I wholeheartedly support their approach on this question.

    As I stated to Frank in a prior comment, building alliances are important, but we have to draw clear lines of demarcation when it comes to highly dangerous and oppressive groups like Scientology.

    You keep referring to Scientology as a “church” in your comments and I don’t ever remember you calling them a cult. This only serves to minimize their danger and add some sort of legitimacy to their claim of being in their essence a religious organization.

    Scientology has enormous financial reserves, large real estate holdings, and powerful legal teams propping up and defending the reputation and legitimacy of their organization. Unfortunately, they will not be going away for a long time.

    And as our movement grows in strength, the question of how to deal with Scientology will more often come forward as a burning question to be decided in the early stages for any emerging activist group fighting psychiatric abuse. It is very important that we get clear on this now or future mistakes will be made that set us back.

    Steve, you said in a prior comment the following: “…There MAY [my emphasis] be a number of things wrong with Scientology…”.

    To me this puts forward, at best, an agnostic position about the true nature of Scientology. Please read some of the personal accounts and internal documents related to this organization’s history and practice. They have destroyed many lives and do enormous harm to people and their families.

    Steve, I have always admired your positions at MIA. You are clearly better than this sort of agnosticism on such a vital question.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    The huge difference here and why your analogy does not work, is the fact that Scientology IS NOT a religion. Scientology, by any careful examination, is a dangerous and harmful cult.

    Only looking at the single issue of how incredibly difficult (and sometimes involving numerous forms of threats) it is to leave the organization, tells you that Scientology is not in the same category of being a religious organization.

    Why accept Scientology’s definition of who they are? They are dangerous cult masquerading as a religion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    And then they can still counter with:

    “it’s obvious you are hiding something because you refuse to answer the question whether or not you are connected to Scientology.”

    Why not be 100% truthful with people AND totally remove Scientology from the discussion by saying:

    “No I have zero connection with Scientology and view them as a dangerous cult.”

    This completely ends the Scientology deflection, and you now have your protagonists on the defensive if they continue to raise it as an issue.

    Steve, my further question to you is: are you somehow leaving the option open for the possibility of working with Scientology or one of their front groups in the future by refusing to label them a dangerous cult?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    To continue the above dialogue:

    “Oh, so you are evading my question about affiliation with Scientology. What are you hiding here? And since when is a group like Scientology, called a religious group. Things I’ve read about them tells me its more than simply attending a church.”

    As one can see, your above approach has actually now given the protagonist in this situation even more ways to deflect the discussion (or debate etc.) by not addressing head on the real nature of Scientology.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • And adding to my above post…

    If anyone asks me (or anyone else) if I’m ( or they) are associated with Scientology, this is my answer:

    “No, Scientology is a very dangerous cult organization, and any attempt by Psychiatry to make this association to me (or the activist group) is an effort to deflect attention away from their multiple crimes and forms of abuse perpetrated against millions of people around the world. Here is a list of those crimes and various forms of abuse…”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    You said: “… since the general public views the church of scientology as a bizarre, abusive, irrational cult…”

    To the extent that the public has such an impression, this is a very good thing.

    And the problem with ANY kind of association with Scientology goes beyond mere “guilt by association,” but includes some of the more informed people out there asking the following question:

    “why the hell would you [activists against psychiatric abuse], or anyone else, want to work with, or have any kind of relationship, with such a dangerous and fascist type organization? Why should I trust you or believe anything you write about or advocate for?”

    I believe people are completely justified in questioning the fundamental judgement of any person or group that decides to work with Scientology or any of their front groups.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You said: “The CCHR is still around today.”

    This is a sad fact. The world would be MUCH BETTER off if CCHR (a front group) and Scientology went out of existence.

    They are a highly funded and powerful political (under the guise of religion) cult. Have you ever read some of the personal accounts of former members about the inner workings of this cult? The amount of psychological AND social forms of control they exercise over their members is one of those “higher forms” of modern slavery that I referenced earlier.

    I respect how desperate you are to see more active resistance against forced treatment, but settling for working with CCHR is NOT the way to go here. This is especially true when you examine the inner workings of this organization.

    When someone exposes a fascist organization like the KKK and their ilk (including Scientology), they are not somehow treating them like “lepers.” This is a false analogy.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Whether or not psychoanalysis requires a medical degree, does not take away from the point that some current “Critical Psychiatry” people use it as one justification to continue Psychiatry as a medical specialty.

    And whether or not Szasz chose to label himself as anti-psychiatry (which he did not) does not mean that he was not part of an emerging anti-psychiatry movement.

    Certainly he provided some very penetrating and devastating critiques of psychiatry and the medical Model that still form some of the political and philosophical foundations for our future movement. Of course, his many political blind spots, as Frank has started to elucidate, undermined his ability to take things much further. That subject would make the basis of a very important book to be published in the future.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You have made excellent points about Szasz’s political shortcomings.

    If Szasz had been a part of the anti-Imperialist (including Black Liberation and Women’s component) uprisings in the 1960’s and beyond, this might have helped pushed the struggle against psychiatrist abuse much more to the forefront of all the major human right’s struggles of our era. Please post some of the best sources of his writings to do further investigation.

    However, you minimize the seriousness of the pragmatic political (and possibly philosophical) errors he made working with Scientology.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    I support your position here (on Szasz and Scientology) 100%.

    It was a huge tactical error for him to ally himself with a dangerous cult. Since Szasz was using pieces of the scientific method and approach to critically analyze Psychiatry, he could have (and should have) done the same with Scientology before working with them.

    Right Wing (of the Fascist ilk) talk show host, Michael Savage, is a big critic of psychiatry’s drugging of people. I would not want to come within a million miles of any kind of association with him or his talk show, even if he offered boatloads of on the air time.

    Unfortunately, Peter Breggin has made major tactical errors in the past appearing on his show several times.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Thanks for your response.

    You said ” I merely suggested that we make use of what Freud has to offer to our society, despite his many serious, unforgivable flaws (just as we accept Thomas Jefferson’s democratic ideals even though he had slaves). I believe that the medical model’s widespread acceptance has dangerously put our country into a state of denial and helplessness, which calls for a Freudian-type analysis of our society itself, not its individuals. What is most important is that we succeed in our movement, and this might require allying ourselves with people whom we dislike or have some disagreements with, since they share our overall beliefs and common cause.”

    Rather than seeking a “Freudian-type analysis of our society” (which would be ultimately reactionary), we would be much better off with a neo-Marxian analysis which would sum up the strengths and weaknesses within the first round of socialist revolutions in the world that were ultimately defeated.

    And by the way, don’t count me in as one who defends Jefferson’s so-called “democratic ideals” which are not unlike conditions in ancient Greece where there was some semblance of “democracy” built upon a slave society.

    There is no such thing as real democracy in class based capitalist society. The existence of voting in the American economic and political system system covers over and obscures the brutal forms of human exploitation that have enabled the U.S. to achieve its number one Imperialist power position in the world. Not the least of these forms of exploitation was the first 100 years of economic growth that launched the U.S. empire on the backs of several million African slaves. Today there exists several different types of “higher forms” of human slavery, that hold back the overall of development of progress in human society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I have to agree with many of the points raised by Steve McCrea and Slaying the Dragon.

    The people who one promotes as role models and/or to be emulated, has great moral and political significance in the world. An overall evaluation of the historical role of Freud would definitely lead to a conclusion that he caused FAR MORE harm than good.

    Lawrence, while I have supported many of your blogs, and gave you much kudos for a recent comment where you took a position for the abolition of Psychiatry (the very first psychiatrist at MIA to take such a position), this blog seems to resurrect some reasons to preserve a piece of Psychiatry for its ability to practice psychoanalysis.

    We all need to read, and/or reread Jeffrey Masson’s books where he has made a devastating critique of the political legacy of Sigmund Freud and discussed many of the power imbalances related to practicing therapy.

    As Steve pointed out, Freud totally betrayed ALL his female clients by disbelieving their sexual abuse narratives, and his cowardice in the face of criticism by colleagues (for originally writing about about high instances of female sexual abuse) leading to his unscientific and thoroughly sexist theories, has been a total disaster to both women and men around the world. We cannot underestimate the damage this has caused.

    To defend and promote Freud in today’s world is the political equivalent of minimizing the overall harm caused by Harvey Weinstein, by somehow saying he produced a few good movies over his lifetime.

    And Slaying the Dragon, while Thomas Szasz made enormous contributions to the anti-psychiatry movement, he was not without significant political shortcomings that actually short circuited the growth of the anti-psychiatry movement coming out of the 1960’s.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sonja

    Thanks for this update and summary of the work being done on this bill. The resistance we have received from the Establishment on this very MODEST bill, is a string indicator of what we are up against and what kind of movement we will need to bring about the necessary changes to protect people from all forms of psychiatric abuse. It’s a long road ahead. I am glad that you are on that road and a part of this journey.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    Good blog. However, I believe the way that you articulated the process of “transformation” and “recovery” comes across as being only attached to the individual going through their period of madness ABSTRACTED from their subsequent interactions with the material world around them.

    You said: “Just “recovering” one’s previous way of functioning is not so likely to work, because usually something wasn’t working prior to the psychosis. It was that which set off the psychosis, and if that isn’t changed, any “recovery” may not be worth much, as the problems, and so the need to transform, will likely still be present, and will tend to cause other problems or even set off another psychotic episode….Success for them is defined not as staying anchored in “this world” or way of looking at things, but in traveling to other worlds or views, coming back to this one to share and connect, then traveling again, etc.”

    Where is the concept of the individual (along with others in their social group) “transforming” the material world around them that is not meeting their needs and/or that is causing them harm or some form of trauma?

    I believe we transform ourselves as we attempt to transform the world around us.

    So when an individual going through a period of “madness” (followed by a “successful recovery”) reengages with the world around them, this will usually necessitate learning something about the nature of their original problems and finding new ways to deal with them. This may involve new cognitive and behavioral adaptations which INCLUDES attempting to change the people and the environment around them. This might also involve leaving one’s toxic surroundings and moving to a new chosen environment.

    This is all another way of describing the following dialectical process: “In order to know the world (in a deep going way) we must be actively involved in changing it, and in order to change the world (in a deep going way) we must know it better.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    You said: “So it’s best that we here at Mad in America put an end to psychiatry before it harms our entire society beyond repair.”

    I have followed and commented on your writings here at MIA over the past year, but this is the FIRST TIME you have taken a decisive ALL THE WAY “anti-psychiatry” position.

    I applaud your in depth exposures of the oppressive psychiatric paradigm of so-called “treatment,” and now your leap to a full blown position calling for an end to Psychiatry. YOU ARE THE FIRST PSYCHIATRIST WHO WRITES HERE AT MIA TO TAKE SUCH A RADICAL POLITICAL STANCE!

    This is a VERY SIGNIFICANT political development in the movement against all forms of psychiatric abuse and in the long term efforts to eventually abolish Psychiatry.

    I hope you, along with all of us other anti-psychiatry activists, can find a way to build upon and expand this form of political and scientific protest. History demands this from us. “Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Eve

    I applaud your willingness to speak out and share the depth of your alienation and moral dilemmas working as a psychiatrist in this country.

    In my own experience, I also witnessed, first hand (while working as a therapist for 23 years in community mental health) the complete takeover of this oppressive (disease/drug based) medical model. I finally resigned in protest in Sept. of 2015. I share your utter contempt for what is happening and your angst while searching for a way to now make a meaningful difference in the world.

    I would, however, ask you to ponder for a moment your following statement:

    “We psychiatrists were once “soul teachers,” which is the true meaning of the word psychiatrist. Not that long ago, our work involved stepping into the deepest recesses of our patients’ worlds, and partnering with them to find healing and transformation.”

    While this above statement bears some truth regarding the role of some people working as psychiatrists in the past, it does also ignore the very dark history related to the history of lobotomies, Electro-Shock, and other harmful forms of control and experimentation on millions of psychiatric victims.

    Even if all psychiatric drug prescriptions were ended today, there would still be a critically important supportive role that dissident psychiatrists could play (for several decades) in helping millions of victims find a way to safely withdraw from (and/or reduce their reliance on) toxic drug substances.

    Dissident psychiatrists could also organize and systematically find ways to to challenge and expose every facet of Biological Psychiatry’s oppressive paradigm, by disrupting business as usual in every professional gathering of psychiatrists and other doctors around the world.

    And lastly, I would challenge all dissident psychiatrists writing here at MIA to consider the decisive role they could play by now calling for the actual end of Psychiatry as a specific medical specialty. Since there is no scientific basis to support DSM diagnoses along with the specious concept of so-called “mental illness,” current psychiatrists could choose to become some type of therapist/counselor or choose to transition to neurology.

    Perhaps holding on to the psychiatric M.D. ONLY to provide support for psychiatric victims involved in drug tapering, AND to maintain a credential for organizing purposes while shaking up professional medical gatherings.

    Eve, thanks again for writing, and I hope you are open to critical feedback as well as support for your valiant efforts in speaking out.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • It’s called CAPITALISM. Genuine science and capitalism are not, and never will be, compatible. The profit motive inherently corrupts and misdirects all scientific endeavors. In this historical era, this outmoded system stands as THE major impediment to the advance of all human social development.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jay

    Your research and writings are invaluable; please know that many people are educated and inspired by your work.

    And I very much appreciate your above response to Bonnie. This emphasis by some researchers on the so-called preventative and curative nature of better nutrition, can become as distracting and misleading as those who are presenting the genetic/disease based theories. Both approaches misdirect people away from any type of critical analysis of the gross inequalities in the world that serve as the basis for trauma and highly stressful daily human experience.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve and Gretchen

    Steve, I agree, and I will take your comment to an even higher level.

    This blog had some well written and positive exposure of the poly-drug crisis in this country. But its conclusions were hugely disappointing and utopian as to any kind of solution for this corporate engineered epidemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people.

    First off, it is wrong (and lets many institutions off the hook) to continue calling this an “opioid epidemic.” This is a POLY-DRUG CRISIS!

    Ninety percent of the people who die from an overdose have other drugs in their system. Benzos are often the key component in the fatal drug cocktails that ultimately stop heart and lung function. There is documented evidence that benzos are involved at least 30% of the time; my estimate would be closer to 50% of the time. THERE IS NO SOLUTION TO THE OPIATE PROBLEM WITHOUT A SOLUTION TO THE BENZO PROBLEM!

    How can anyone who watched the 60 Minute expose on the colluding elements of federal government agencies and Big Pharma, actually believe that just trying to call for Big Pharma to somehow fund the solution to this poly-drug crisis, will actually bring about the desired results???

    With all the crimes perpetrated by Big Pharma and their CEO’s in promoting harmful drugs over the past 4 decades, not a single CEO has spent one day in jail for these crimes. During this same period of time pharmaceutical corporations have been fined tens of billions of dollars. This turns out to be just the cost of doing business since these pharmaceutic corporation have some of the highest rates of profit of any industries in this capitalist economy.

    Unless and until a government and legal system exists that will put on trial and jail people who commit these types of crimes against humanity, there will be NO solution to the poly-drug crisis, or any other such social injustice. Any other so-called solution short of this, is simply utopian and misleading when it comes to where people should be expending their energies in some kind of movement.

    And Gretchen, I am giving this feedback with the utmost respect for someone who I believe is very well intentioned in their efforts to bring some light to a vitally important issue. I hope you are open to such feedback.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • This is a very important topic.

    Another valuable link for this discussion would be a blog I authored two years ago titled: “May the Force NEVER EVER Be With You: The Case for Abolition.” The in depth discussion that follows this blog is very rich in content and covers every possible angle of this debate.

    https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/10/may-force-never-ever-case-abolition/

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This is a huge loss for humanity. Matt was a vanguard fighter in the human rights movement against all forms of psychiatric abuse. His compassionate humanity was revealed through all his comments and his blog writings at MIA. His relatively small number of blogs at MIA have played a very significant role in decontructing the pseudo-science and oppressive nature of Biological Psychiatry.

    Matt always made his viewpoint very well known to his readers at MIA (in both his comments and blogs), but he was also very open to feedback and criticism. We can all learn from his approach to seeking the truth.

    Following his first blog at MIA I wrote the following comment:

    “Matt
    This one of the very best blogs ever to appear on the MIA website. I do not make this statement lightly. The writing style is first rate and the the depth of research and the ability to combine such research with firsthand experiences is outstanding. I look forward to your future writings here and believe you have a critically important leadership role to play in human rights struggle against all forms of psychiatric oppression…. Richard”

    We will sorely miss those future contributions to our movement. When we lose someone of Matt’s stature we must all work that much harder to fill his enormous shoes and continue our march forward. All the best to his family and those that loved and admired him.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bradford

    I respect many of your points but disagree with the following statement:

    “Also, I think psychiatry needs “the system”, far more than vice versa…. Would the pharmaceutical industry go *poof*, just because psychiatry did? Hah!…”

    This System we live under does VERY MUCH need Psychiatry and their paradigm of “treatment” as a necessary form of social control over those sections of the people who are most likely to rise up against it.

    AND the pharmaceutical industry has been a vital (highly profitable) sector of the U.S. economy, and psychiatric drugs are a big piece of this industry.

    For these reasons Psychiatry ans their Disease/Drug Based System have become “too big (and important) to fail.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Monica

    Great message!

    “… consensual psychosis is the status quo…”

    Brilliant deconstruction of accepted thinking. I will definitely make use of that catch phrase in the future. Trump’s speech at the UN immediately comes to mind, and all those who would accept even a sliver of what he is putting forward, is simply shear insanity at best.

    His ultra nationalism (Fascism) is the the personification of “me first” in a profit based society that turns everything and everyone into a “commodity” to be bought and sold to the highest bidder. To accept all this, while almost half of humanity does not exactly know where their next meal is coming from, sets the tone and traumatic reality that millions of people face on this planet.

    “Mental illness” is their way of obscuring an oppressive reality and then blame the victims.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bradford

    Lawrence has raised some important and true information in response to your point about the lack of psychiatrists and some of their current difficulties in staffing.

    I am not trying to be cynical or negative in reminding people of the still growing power of Psychiatry. I am only trying to be realistic about what we are up against here and what it might take to ultimately defeat Biological Psychiatry.

    Yes, I do believe the anti-psychiatry forces have made important advances in the last decade especially, but unfortunately the Diseased/Drug Based Model is so deeply embedded within medicine and our entire culture (after a several hundred billion dollar PR campaign), that its power has not been affected. It is still growing as we speak.

    Also, this economic and political system needs Psychiatry, and all its drugging, to control some of the more volatile sections of the people who could potentially organize significant resistance to multiple types of human rights struggles in this country and around the world. Psychiatry has literally become “too big to fail” to the maintenance of this system.

    All of this means our strategy against Biological Psychiatry must be both broad and inclusive, and very much connected to other human rights struggle challenging a profit based system/Empire.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Robert

    You said: “I don’t support any professional guilds and their hold on power. I oppose all of that.”

    The above statement DOES NOT mesh with the overall intent of the message in your blog which is seeking the “salvation” of Psychiatry. As a psychiatrist who is promoting more therapy and less drugging and labeling of people, you are, in fact, supporting the further existence of this guild and ALL its interests by suggesting A WAY for Psychiatry to save itself.

    And then you said the following: “I fully support fighting against today’s psychiatry. I do know that todays psychiatry will collapse upon itself. Because it is wrong and destructive. It has to, and I know it will. It is happening already.”

    No matter how well intentioned your motives are here (and I do believe you are sincere and compassionate in your work with people) this amounts to nothing more than pure wishful thinking on your part.

    Psychiatry is not currently “collapsing [in] upon itself” nor will it just fall apart “because it is wrong.”

    Psychiatry is stronger than ever and drugging and labeling more people everyday as we speak. Psychiatry has become a vital and necessary form of social control in a system that is clearly headed in a fascist direction as part of an Empire that is facing increasing competition and threats from competing powers on the planet.

    To end ALL forms of psychiatric oppression AND the institution from which it derives, major political struggle will have to be directed against that institution, as part of joint action and movements focused on multiple human rights issues.

    In a prior blog comment section you said that you were not a “political person.” The reality today is that we ALL must become more political (even if this makes us uncomfortable) if we truly want to end human suffering on the planet.

    Conscious and moral psychiatrists DO have an important role in the world in fighting psychiatric oppression:

    1) There are are millions of people trying to find a way to safely taper off of toxic psychiatric drugs who could use the help of sympathetic doctors. This struggle will go on for several decades even if all new psychiatric drug prescriptions ended today

    2) Activist psychiatrists can raise hell in every psychiatric organization and meeting that takes place on the planet by exposing and condemning all aspects of Biological Psychiatry. This could seriously disrupt the function of Psychiatry as an institution.

    3) Activist psychiatrists can call for the abolishment of Psychiatry as a medical specialty. This would have an enormously powerful political impact in drawing attention to the nature and origins of all forms of psychiatric oppression. This would be a courageous and selfless act that could make a huge difference in the overall struggle.

    Robert, I love your passion and commitment to help people and your willingness to criticize Biological Psychiatry. But there is an overall lack of moral consistency in your central themes and arguments here. I hope you are open to constructive feedback.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Robert

    Why would you or anyone else, who is trying to be both scientific and moral at the same time, want to save Psychiatry as a medical specialty? There is a world, and a world outlook, of difference between “therapy”: and “Psychiatry.” Since the word “salvation” has a strong religious context, I would say that ALL people (including current psychiatrists trying to be moral human beings) should seek “salvation” FROM Psychiatry, rather that attempt to somehow salvage what could be referred to as one of the closest thing to evil on this planet.

    I hesitate to use the word “evil” since it implies an a priori existence (like the “Devil”) which is abstracted from the political and social conditions in the world that have given rise to modern Biological Psychiatry, and which currently perpetuate its existence as a critical form of “social control.”

    Here I will repeat a comment I made to you in a prior blog on exactly the same subject about why Psychiatry should be abolished rather than somehow salvaged as a medical specialty:

    “Your theory of “the play of consciousness in the theater of the brain” has great merit as one way to explain severe psychological distress. I have no doubt you are a very good therapist who has helped many people overcome enormous problems coping with a very unjust world.”

    “But where is your scientific rationale for keeping Psychiatry as a medical specialty when the essence of what you do in the real word is “therapy,” and also the construction of well thought out therapeutic theories for how best to work with people in distress?”:

    “Since you agree that there are no brain “diseases” and the Medical Model is absolutely wrong when looking at ways of analyzing and providing support for people in distress, why hold on to the credential of Psychiatry/MD? Doesn’t the very existence of the MD moniker mislead people as to what you do and perpetuate the belief that these are “medical” problems that you are addressing in therapy?”

    “Yes, while Biological Psychiatry is the worst of Psychiatry on steroids, our Grandmother’s Psychiatry several decades ago was also quite oppressive when we look at the existence of lobotomies, Electro-shock, and other oppressive forms of “treatment” that people were subjected to. You even agree that psychoanalysis, which was more prevalent among psychiatrists in this period, also had its serious problems.”

    “One of best ways to proceed in a current movement to end ALL forms of psychiatric abuse is for activist doctors to declare Psychiatry THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FRAUD that it TRULY IS in the real world.”

    “Robert, you could play a much more powerful role in this movement if you, as a psychiatrist with the MD moniker, would renounce the complete legitimacy of your profession as a medical specialty and sacrifice all the power and financial benefits that go with it.”

    “This would make a very important statement to the world that could potentially change many people’s thinking on the true nature and oppressive role of Psychiatry. And actually, this act of courage and defiance would provide a much STRONGER AND POWERFUL BASIS to promote your highly creative and useful theories of providing supportive therapy for those experiencing extremes forms of psychological distress.”

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • This blog has exposed many problems with MAT (Medically Assisted Treatment). Let’s start with the name. First we must expose how the System cleverly changed the name from “Opioid Replacement Therapy.” to “Medically Assisted Treatment.”

    This change is deliberately designed to make it sound more benign and cover up the fact that they are providing more addictive synthetic opiate “drugs” NOT “MEDICINE,” as an alleged form of “treatment.”

    When discussing this issue we must “ALWAYS” expose their use of deceitful language to cover up their crimes BEFORE we analyze what is wrong with their approach to “treating” opiate addiction problems. Accepting their misuse of the English language is to concede them more power to brainwash people.

    Yes, suboxone and methadone may have some value as a very short term aid for people with these problems. But as some kind of long term “solution,” it is just a highly profitable making business that actually contributes to the continuation and expansion of opiate drug addiction problems.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kate Millett’s important role as a radical feminist and as an anti-psychiatry activist has not been appreciated or thoroughly recognized. I hope someone like Bonnie Burstow will write a more comprehensive account of her political and cultural significance to the struggle for human rights and freedom.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Eric

    Great blog. Very well written, and very sharp in its exposure of the blatant distortions of the scientific method by Dr. Torrey and his cohorts who seemingly ignore reality slapping them in their face – all for an agenda of promoting the pseudo-science of Biological Psychiatry.

    And I agree with Darby, that definitely quotation marks should always be used for ANY of the so-called DSM psychiatric diagnoses. We mustn’t give any credibility to their misuse of the language supporting oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kurt and Elizabeth

    Some good history and exposure of the Pharmaceutical industry in this blog.

    However, there are important weaknesses in this blog which let certain institutions off the hook and misdirect people away from the ultimate solutions to these problems.

    First off, it is a big mistake to continue to call this an “opioid crisis.” This mistake, by itself, is very useful to the powerful forces supporting the status quo, and it obscures larger things going on here.

    THERE IS NO OPIOID CRISIS IN THIS COUNTRY! This is a POLY-DRUG OVERDOSE CRISIS!

    Very few people EVER die with ONLY opioids in their system.

    Your did not make a SINGLE mention of benzodiazapines in this blog which have DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE of at least a 30% involvement in these overdoses deaths. My estimates are that this figure could be AS MUCH AS 50%! Where benzo are more often THE DECISIVE COMPONENT in the drug cocktail that ultimately kills people by shutting down heart and lung function. Most opiate dependent or addicted people KNOW HOW how to use their opiates, it is the fact that they lost track of their benzo consumption throughout the day. And there is documented evidence that 60% of all regular users of opiates (both legal and illegal) ALSO take benzos on a regular basis.

    It is WRONG to write about opiate drugs today WITHOUT, AT THE SAME TIME, discussing the concurrent benzo crisis in this country.

    AND the growth in benzos prescriptions (NOW UP TO 100 MILLION PER YEAR) in this country PARALLELS the growth in opioid prescriptions over the past 20 years.

    AND the institution of Psychiatry (in collusion with Big Pharma) played a decisive role in promoting and extending the proliferation of LONG TERM benzo prescriptions that makes this an epidemic equal to the opiate prescription problem.

    Until we get our terminology and history down and spread broadly, including appropriate names for these problems, along with targeting and ultimately punishing (with jail time) those institutions and individuals responsible for these crimes, nothing is going to change.

    I hope you can accept this constructive criticism with an open mind.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bueno

    Good comment. Only we need to stop using the word “medicate” when it comes to describing psychiatric drugs. These are “mind altering drugs,” no different than other substances such as cocaine, pot, or opiates.

    Biological Psychiatry in collusion with Big Pharma has spent hundreds of billions of dollars convincing the public that these chemical substance are “”medicines.” We cannot and should not allow them to get away with this by using their PR type language which only misinforms the public and causes great harm.

    Once again, “language” is a very import part of our struggle to overcome all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence, Daniel, and all

    Just as there is no easy or simply solution (especially in pill form) to solve human beings conflict with their environment, there is also no “one simple word” that will somehow capture the crimes of Biological Psychiatry in these cases.

    “Iatrogenic” is a scientific term (unfortunately not YET widely known) that means “medically induced.” Not all definitions use the meaning “accidental.” I believe we need to keep using this scientific term until people start to grasp its meaning, especially when referring to psychiatric abuse.

    Most of the time “iatrogenic dependency” and the damage it causes is “accidental” when it comes to the particular doctor prescribing the drugs. Should they know better in the broadest sense? Yes!

    BUT these are major SYSTEMIC problems with many institutions (Psychiatry, organized medice, and Big Pharma etc.) who are deliberately putting profit BEFORE the safety and health of the public.

    We do not want to focus so much on individual doctors and take the focus off the toxic and “sick” system that has misinformed and brainwashed most doctors about psychiatric drugs in order to advance their profit and power in our society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Let’s not give in to System language. Giving in WILL NOT get people the help they truly need. We need to forcefully challenge their language and terminology, as part of taking on the whole ideological underpinnings of this oppressive System.

    “Iatrogenic dependence” and “iatrogenic damage” are powerful terms when properly explained. The correct terminology will NOT become understood by broad numbers of people unless WE start using it now.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    I am NOT saying that someone could never become “addicted” to a psychiatric drug and/or take them in an “addictive” way – which involves a whole psychological component (self defeating type behavior patterns) as well. Yes, this does occur for some people with drugs like benzos, neurotin, ambien, and even seroquel etc., but this is NOT the dominant trend out there.

    What I am trying to emphasize here (and I believe J.Doe was as well) is that the vast majority of people who take psychiatric drugs AS PRESCRIBED, like a benzo, more often become physiologically (iatrogenically) DEPENDENT on them and suffer iatrogenic damage as a result. This is NOT addiction.

    They should not be called “addicts” and/or labelled as “addicted” or “treated” as if they have an addiction. This will only add to the harm already done and make the recovery from iatrogenic damage more difficult.

    Changing the language we use in these situations is a VITAL part of our overall efforts to defeat Biological Psychiatry and completely dismantle their entire paradigm that controls today’s “mental health” system. To not challenge the use of this language is to let the System get over on us and to reinforce their ideological hold on the masses of people.

    And BTW, 12 Step Programs are completely dominated by a disease based model and they have almost completely surrendered to Biological Psychiatry in their view and practice towards the use of mind altering psychiatric drugs. While these programs may help a small number of people, they do far more harm than good when it comes to people trying to overcome addiction problems.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    You said in a prior comment: “One of the biggest scams that psychiatrists have created, is handing out monthly suboxone prescriptions which enable heroin use by minimizing withdrawals until their next fix, or help them earn extra money for heroin by selling the suboxone on the street (where it creates more addicts), or make it easy for drug-seeking teens and young adults to legally score opioids if they are finding it hard to get them from pain doctors. They earn so much from assembly-lines of 5-minute suboxone clients, that even highly-paid doctors like anesthesiologists are getting in on the gravy train in order to increase their incomes. 12.5 million suboxone-type prescriptions are filled yearly, and healthcare and our government are calling for it to be used much more. ”

    I couldn’t have said this any better. This deserves an entire blog in and of itself
    You might want to check out my past blog on a similar topic.

    https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/04/manufacture-maintenance-oppression-profitable-business/

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    This is also a very one-sided (and unscientific) description of human nature, and tends to correspond to human nature as shaped by capitalist culture (in this historical era) – that is, “look out for number one and stab the person in the back to get ahead” etc.

    Human nature is a very malleable part of the human species. Human beings are “social beings” with the capacity to think rationally about what is in their best interests as a species.

    Humans are (and can) learn over time that cooperation and the institutions and social organizations that promote cooperation will serve its interests and overall survival as a species, MUCH BETTER than resorting to individual and/or selfish behaviors and/or creating those institution and forms of social organization that promote power differentials and gross inequalities on the entire planet.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Overall a very good blog that raises some very important points about the role of Psychiatry in the poly-drug overdose crisis.

    It is very strong in drawing the connections between Biological Psychiatry’s “genetic theories of original sin” and the DSM diagnosing of children as a major causative factor.

    Some weaknesses were the narrowing of the focus to psychiatry’s role to the exclusion of Big Pharma and their profit bonanza with their massive campaigns in selling opiate drugs. In particular, the role of Purdue Pharmaceuticals and their launching of oxycontin in the mid 1990’s with their 5th Vital Sign Campaign and the resulting proliferation of pain clinics throughout the nation.

    Also, it is important to expose how the epic rise in benzodiazepine prescriptions parallels the corresponding rise in opiate prescriptions during the past 20 years. AND benzos are likely to be THE primary lethal agent in the drug cocktails in the poly-drug overdoses (involving opiates) that ultimately lead to death. AND of course, Psychiatry is intimately involved in the epidemic of benzo prescriptions which are now about 100 million per year – mostly long term prescriptions.

    On the issue of psychiatric drugs being “addictive,” I believe it is far more accurate and scientific to use the term “dependency” and/or “dependency producing” when describing these drugs. Please read J.Doe’s blog on benzodiazepines which is a great breakdown of the vital difference between the terms “addiction” and “dependency.”

    And finally, it is important to constantly point out the role of Biological Psychiatry’s paradigm of “treatment” and entire “mental health” system as an apparatus of social control in an increasingly volatile society amidst a dying Imperialist empire.

    Keep writing.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    A great blog that should be required reading for EVERYONE who wishes to pursue working in today’s “mental health” system.

    Your fictionalized dialogue has brilliantly exposed the essence of everything that is wrong with the current paradigm of the so-called “treatment of people experiencing normal human distress to an abnormal set of highly stressful environmental circumstances.

    We have a long and difficult road ahead to dismantle the System that encapsulates everything that you have so eloquently exposed in the above blog. Biological Psychiatry, in collusion with Big Pharma, has literally spent several hundred billion dollars in one of the world’s largest PR campaigns (ever in human history) that now pervades the thinking of vast sections of the population across the entire planet.

    Nothing short of major Revolutionary changes in the world can reverse the damage and harm that will continue if Biological Psychiatry is allowed to continue its means of social control in our society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This article should be read by all MIA readers.

    This provides a penetrating analysis of the connections between modern human distress with the way in which society is structured, in particular, the way in which the production of human necessities is carried out and the resulting effects of all the inequalities of their distribution.

    We cannot seriously talk about ending psychiatric oppression without at the same time questioning the very nature of the environment that endlessly creates and nurtures its existence.

    My only criticism of this article is its obvious failure to question the very terminology and System thinking that mislabels and misunderstands all the forms of human distress it has so eloquently analyzed its origins.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • samruck2

    I would never suggest that one has to be “anti-capitalist” to become part of a movement against psychiatric abuse, or that it should now be the “dividing line” issue.

    I am mainly advocating the importance of linking our current human rights movement against psychiatric abuse with other important movements such as the environment, anti-fascist, anti-racist, women’s struggles etc. Where do you stand on this point?

    I am only pointing out that at some point in the future of this particular movement (and all the other important political movements) the serious problems with Libertarianism and other Right Wing world views (attempting to lead these struggles) will present itself as a major roadblock to the progress of our efforts to end ALL form of human oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Slaying the Dragon…

    You said: “Richard, with all due respect, you called my comment both true and absurd. Which is it?”

    Perhaps you should reread my comment. There is a HUGE difference in saying that there is “one objective reality” and saying that a human being can obtain some type of “objective neutrality.”

    ALL human beings are biased in their interpretation of reality. It is YOU who has promoted the myth of some form of political “neutrality.”

    You said: “The fact that psychiatry flourishes in modern America gives pause for reflection.”

    The reality is that not only does Biological Psychiatry flourish in the United States, but it is this particular Capitalist/Imperialist empire that was its birthplace, AND also where it is currently headquartered, AND where it grows exponentially every year to be exported throughout the world.

    And finally, you said: “I assure you that I am 100% antipsychiatry, and that the most thoughtful critics of psychiatry, Szasz included, have had a clear vision of the connection between psychiatry and the therapeutic state that is not in the least bit inimical to capitalism.”

    As great as the contributions of Thomas Szasz have been to the anti-psychiatry movement, it was precisely his ideological and political blind spots when it comes to his worship of “free market” capitalism that seriously LIMITED his ability to link the movement against psychiatric abuse with the powerful anti-Imperialist movements in the 1960’s.

    Just think of where we might be today if such an important thinker like Szasz had forged some type of theoretical and political (anti-psychiatry) analysis with these historically significant political movements that shook the world at that time. These were Movements which he not only ignored, but denigrated. This was such a major historical opportunity that was truly missed.

    Fortunately, there were some separate survivor/mental patient liberation type organizations and struggles that clearly originated and grew out of the 1960’s movements that provide us with some valuable history lessons.

    And today, Szasz would clearly run into a major theoretical and political wall when trying to accurately analyze the role of Big Pharma and how the profit motive corrupts almost all of medical science while providing essential fuel to the growth of Biological Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Slaying the Dragon…

    You said above: “But the author of this post does not argue from a point of pure, lofty, objective neutrality.”

    This is an absurd statement. There is no such thing as arguing from “…a point of pure, lofty, objective neutrality.”

    Yes, there is one “objective reality” out there BUT there has never been, nor will there ever will be, such a thing as human “objective neutrality.” We all have biases, and some of those biases are a closer approximation of what is truly going on with regards to the the objective world out there.

    Yes, someone from the “Right” can be anti-psychiatry, BUT only up to a certain point. One CANNOT be “ALL THE WAY” anti-psychiatry if you do not understand how capitalism and the profit motive has been an ESSENTIAL FUEL to the meteoric growth of Biological Psychiatry over the past 4 decades.

    NOR can one be “ALL THE WAY” anti-psychiatry if they don’t understand how essential Psychiatry has become to the maintenance of a capitalist social order. OR if one does not understand the kind of movement (and forces necessary to make up that movement) that would be needed to truly end this barbaric “mental health” system that is led by the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex.

    AND finally your comment that “…when in reality every successful advancement in the cause of liberty has come directly from the right, and from God fearing individuals who defied the consensus….” could not be more OUT OF TOUCH with reality and a complete distortion of human history.

    AND don’t forget it was all those “God fearing individuals” from the “Bible Belt” who formed the KKK and turned that part of the country into an area that could have been more aptly called the “Lynching Belt.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Harper

    You said: ” I am not allowed to blog on MIA because I would be attacked as a professional. Yet I am offering a replacement model for the DSM, but have great difficulty getting a hearing for these ideas because I am a professional.”

    Can you explain more of your meaning here? There are many professionals who blog at MIA. Over the past 4-5 years I (as a professional) have 18 published blogs at this website. That said, that does NOT mean its always easy or that you don’t need a thick skin and the ability to accept and contemplate penetrating criticisms of your words and ideas. But it is overall a great opportunity to learn and teach through this intense form of dialogue, especially from those with “lived experience.”

    And speaking of criticism: your website ( http://www.HarperWest.co ) reveals that you are indeed a real critic of the current “mental health” system and you even use the word “anti-psychiatry.” And in this comment above you put “mental disorders” in quotes BUT on your website you list “bipolar disorder” and a few other DSM “disorders” WITHOUT quotes. Is this just an oversight on your part or do you believe there is a basis to call these types of behaviors and thoughts some type of “mental disorder?”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Great blog that raises all the key questions about the current weaknesses and strengths in our movement against psychiatric oppression.

    Three years ago I wrote a blog that brought up similar issues. Here are a few quotes:

    “…This evolution of psychiatry in the recent era has to be carefully examined in connection to its strong links to the U.S. economy, especially the meteoric rise in the pharmaceutical industry, as well as other geo-political developments in the world, including increased governmental control and forms of repression in post 9/11 America….”

    “…Biological Psychiatry is not your grandmother’s or father’s psychiatry, as the expression goes; it’s not just “psychiatry being psychiatry” all over again. It is exponentially more dangerous and powerful than ever, and absolutely more essential to the “powers that be” in preserving the status quo. To not understand or grasp these historic changes will cause us to underestimate what we are up against and possibly misdirect us away from knowing how to develop the appropriate strategy for future efforts to end all psychiatric oppression….”

    “…To those who say that “psychiatry is dead,” and that it’s about ready to “collapse under its own weight” and that it just needs a little push from us to knock it down for good, I say this fails to understand what psychiatry has truly become in today’s world and how deeply entrenched and valuable it is to the ruling classes and to the survival of their entire monopoly capitalist system…”

    “…All these facts and statistics, combined with our own collective experience living within this system, leads us to one possible chilling conclusion: Today’s Biological Psychiatry has become such an essential part of the economic and political fabric holding together our present day society, including its ability and need to maintain control over the more volatile sections of the population, that its future existence may be totally interdependent on the rise and fall of the entire system itself…”

    The bottom line is that – Biological Psychiatry and all the institutions it colludes with for its current existence and overall power position in our society, has become TOO BIG AND IMPORTANT FOR MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO TO BE ALLOWED TO FAIL.

    As the author of the above blog points out, it is vitally important that the anti-psychiatry movement link itself up with ALL the other key movements against the System, which should include the environmental movement, anti-racist movement, anti-fascist movement, women’s movement, LGBT etc.

    Key forms of direct action at key targets are important to weaken the enemy and organize new forces. BUT this alone is not enough as the above blog indicates. We do need to broaden our analysis, as well as, find creative ways to expose Psychiatry and increase our numbers and supporters. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY we cannot succeed in this movement by trying to “go it alone.”

    AND we cannot underestimate the importance of forming some type of vanguard organizations that have both a solid overall analysis and a strategy for advancing the struggle at this particular time which identifies psychiatry’s weak points and engages with them more on our terms.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Humanbeing

    I believe you were correct about the extremely low fatality rates taking a single overdose of ONLY benzos. The CDC statistical rates that Dr. Kelmenson quoted were INVOLVING benzodiazepines, meaning other drugs were involved in these deaths.

    AND very few people die of a single overdose of ONLY opiates. I believe 90% of the time other drugs are involved, with a high percentage being benzos – my estimate would be close to 50% of these poly-drug overdose deaths involve benzos.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I agree with all those who have raised SERIOUS questions about the use of benzos to alleviate problems with protracted withdrawal from SSRI’s.

    From Dr. Shipko’s series of blogs, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT BENZOS ARE ACTUALLY ONE OF THE CAUSES OF THE LONG TERM EMERGENCE OF AKATHISIA AND/OR PROTRACTED WITHDRAWAL FROM SSRI’S, OR JUST A SHORT TERM REDUCER OF THESE HORRIBLE WITHDRAWAL EFFECTS THAT ENDS UP MAKING LONG TERM RECOVERY MORE DIFFICULT.

    Dr. Shipko is NOT presenting a careful scientific presentation of all the evidence here with accurate timelines and knowledge about patients history of benzo or other sedative/hypnotic drug use over many years. This is only ANECDOTAL experience by one doctor’s observations over several years. I appreciate his efforts to help people and find out more about these withdrawal problems, but his conclusions and practices regarding benzos should definitely be SERIOUSLY QUESTIONED by all, BEFORE these drugs become more actively used in these cases of SSRI withdrawal.

    I would raise the following important questions about the ANECDOTAL evidence presented by Dr. Shipko:

    1) Anxiety is usually very much a big part of the depression experience as people lose confidence in their ability to predict their environment around them. This makes the prescription of benzos (from many different kinds of doctors) a huge likelihood in the prescription experience of those patients experiencing depression and/or protracted SSRI withdrawal. How many of these patients had PRIOR prescriptions of benzos and were PRIMED to both desire them (because of their short term effectiveness) and to develop dependency issues and/or the resulting benzo withdrawal issues that are now blamed on the SSRI’s?

    2) We have no way of knowing if those people suffering severe protracted SSRI withdrawal (including suicidal tendencies) and who were prescribed benzos (by a doctor anxious to reduce suicidal thoughts) what ALTERNATIVE solutions they would have eventually sought out to solve their problems. And perhaps this level of desperation could have led them to find BETTER and less dangerous solutions than taking benzos.

    3) We have no way to really know the actual LONG TERM results of those patients who ended up taking benzos to reduce their horrible withdrawal effects/akathisia. Are they eventually able to get off of the benzos, OR do they just become slaves to another drug withdrawal process that prolongs their misery?

    4) There is no documented evidence of the overall health and daily practices (and trauma histories) of those suffering akathisia and/or protracted withdrawal, including whether or not they use other mind altering substances or have lifestyle choices that make their withdrawal more difficult.

    5) For all these reasons it would be a huge mistake to draw ANY conclusions that somehow benzos are a safe alternative for people experiencing protracted SSRI withdrawal problems. At this time there is far more scientific and anecdotal evidence about the extreme harm caused by long term benzo use.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thanks for the response.

    Just to clarify my use of the word “provocative,” I meant that in the positive sense of the word, in that I do believe we need to be “provocative” in today’s world in order to effectively challenge an oppressive status quo.

    I do wish the author of this blog would respond to some of your challenging criticisms so we could all learn more through a back and forth type dialogue on this important topic.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • “If we can somehow let the public know that the foundation of biological psychiatry is a complete lie, then the whole thing should come tumbling down.”

    Lawrence, I wish it were that easy. There have been a number of powerful exposures of Biological Psychiatry published over the past 2 decades, including by a very vocal minority of critical thinking doctors. We clearly have the science on our side and an emerging group of activists and survivors, but we are up against some VERY powerful institutions.

    AND we are confronting an overall capitalist system that puts profits before ALL else. I believe that Psychiatry (with its growing role of social control in our society) and the wing of Big Pharma making enormous profits from psychiatric drugs have become “too big to fail.”

    I say this NOT to be defeatist but only to point out the necessity to link up this movement against psychiatric abuse with all the other movements (such as environmentalists, women, anti-racist etc.) that are confronting a profit based system that stands as a major impediment to all human progress.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Thanks for continuing to dialogue.

    First off, I applaud your critical thinking skills and your willingness to speak out against the oppressive paradigm of “treatment” that has seized control of your profession. And I hope you continue to write here at MIA because you have much to offer the readers.

    My point about MD’s and other writers with credentials (including myself) working within this system, is that we have “a greater burden of proof” when it comes to teaching others about what is so wrong with this system, as well as, suggesting better alternatives.

    This “burden of proof” is very much based on the power differential that exists between professional and patient/client, and the harm caused by a high percentage of those working in this field.

    If you take the time to read many of the “personal stories” and other blogs written at MIA, and also the personal stories within the comment section, you will find a wealth of information and experience that you can incorporate into your critiques of Biological Psychiatry.

    These personal stories, combined with Dr. Peter Breggin’s writings, especially, do provide much evidence (both scientific and anecdotal) about the particular harm caused by antidepressant drugs. Also, you might want to read the short series of blogs written by Dr. Stuart Shipko that detail his long experience with victims of antidepressants. I believe that some of this material might change your perspective on the long term effects of these drugs on the brain.

    And BTW, as valuable as Dr. Stuart Shipko’s blogs have been at MIA, he did not go without some important criticisms regarding his acceptance of prescribing benzos for patients who were experiencing protracted withdrawal from antidepressants.

    Your points in your blog about the role of the placebo effect were very good, but it overall tended to seriously downplay other more harmful physical effects that result from this category of drug.

    I would also suggest you take some time to investigate Monica Cassani’s important website “BeyondMeds.com” which has a wealth of information on these subjects.

    Please don’t shy away or hide from your MD credential, but just be more aware of the “power differential” and the extra “burden of proof” that comes with it.

    I’ll look forward to reading more of your blogs in the future, and thanks for hanging in there in the face of some criticism. This is how we all learn and eventually arrive at the truth.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • mjms1165

    A good ripe peach can be VERY SWEET and so am I to most people.

    If you REALLY want to know more about me and my belief system, you could take the time to do just a little more research before you start hurling insults and making false assumptions.

    Just click on “about” at the top of the MIA heading, and then click on “writers” and look for my name and picture using first names. There you will find 17 of my published blogs at MIA.

    You can also click on my name in the actual comment section and see (and read) every single comment I have made over the past 5 or more years at MIA.

    If you are, in fact, truly interested in knowing how I conduct discussion and struggle at MIA, including whether or not I am fair in my dialogue with other writers, you will take some time to do this research before “shooting from the hip.”

    When you read those comments you will notice that I almost always give credit to writers when they make good points, and I try to do that first BEFORE I launch into ANY criticisms or questions – which is exactly what I did with Lawrence Kelmenson.

    HOWEVER, when other professionals come to MIA with an attitude and/or an approach that they are here ONLY to teach others THEIR knowledge (and I do believe that many like Dr. L.M. do have much knowledge to learn from) BUT act in a way that also indicates they are defensive about any criticisms, and respond as if they have nothing they can learn from psychiatric survivors or other writers with far less credentials, or ignore the writings of those activists who have been engaged in this struggle for many decades (like Dr. Peter Breggin), THEN YES I will step up my degree of criticism until they show some humility and/or fully engage with respect and equality by responding to SPECIFIC points brought up in the counter dialogue.

    MIA has been published for over 5 years and there is a wealth of resources available through this website. Prospective writers at MIA (if they are smart) should do some basic homework before coming here to teach or share their knowledge with others, including those thousands of readers who have been deeply harmed by this oppressive “mental health” system. A system that is led by doctors and others who have numerous credentials after their name.

    Just so you know, I myself, as a therapist who, at that time, had worked 19 years in community mental health as an LMHC licensed therapist, VERY carefully studied the writings and comment section at MIA for 6 months BEFORE I even dared to comment or write a blog submission to the editors.

    SO mjms1165, what is your story???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Nobody here has denied or contradicted your thesis that the placebo effect is very short lived and that reality will most certainly reassert itself in people’s lives again.

    HOWEVER, there is FAR MORE to this story, and there is an entirely NEW reality that enters a person’s life when they start taking mind altering psychiatric drugs.

    It would be important for you to do some preliminary homework about Mad in America BEFORE you pontificate theories here that ignore and dismiss over 5 yeas of publication of the detailed stories of psychiatric victims AND the scientific research that clearly elucidates the harm done to the brain by psychiatric drugs.

    BECAUSE when people challenge some of your theories (that reflects your lack of homework in reading key source material mentioned), you simply repeat your main point, and fail to respond to the specific arguments be raised in criticism. This approach will not work here at MIA.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Quote from above:

    “And when people are put on synthroid, they usually stay on it indefinitely, because their bodies’ own production of natural thyroid hormone slows down or stops, since they are getting all they need from the outside. Here we again have modern medicine’s classic business model.”

    Sounds exactly like the two important brain mechanisms called “homeostasis” and “down regulation” (which I have outlined in two comments above), and which your blog unfortunately seems to deny and/or ignore as it related to all psychiatric drugs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Yes, we get all the evidence with the placebo effect influencing the INITIAL positive reports about the mood enhancement of antidepressants.

    But when you say the following: ” If SSRI’s serotonergic effects aren’t the actual cause of the mood improvement, wouldn’t that make it likely that they aren’t the cause of the mood worsening, either?”

    Aren’t you engaging here in shear speculation (similar to methods used by Biological Psychiatry) without any science to back this up these comments? Aren’t you discounting tons of personal experience reported by thousands of victims of the psych drugging epidemic along with the research of decades of work by Dr. Peter Breggin???

    Lawrence, you have NOT addressed all the other points that I (and others) have raised regarding the actual brain disabling effects of all psych drugs.

    In addition to placebo effect, part of the initial mood enhancement reported by some users of antidepressant is the actual STIMULANT EFFECT produced by these drugs because of a chemical composition similar to other stimulant drugs. Don’t forget that stimulant drugs were some of the first “antidepressants” to be tried by Psychiatry. The manic behavior CAUSED by SSRI antidepressants IS NOT just part of someone’s imagination at work here.

    Lawrence, have you read any of Dr. Peter Breggin’s books? Are you prepared to mount a counter narrative to all the research and analysis he has done over several decades?

    Kirsch’s writings on the placebo effect are NOT the end all of a comprehensive analysis on the short or long term effects of antidepressant drugs.

    Lawrence, have you ever asked any of your patients/clients about their reactions and feelings regarding the overall effects (both positive and negative) of antidepressants on their thinking and personality?

    Well, I have done so numerous times, and their answers often mirror the research done by Peter Breggin and several others who report emotional blunting/numbing (over time) and difficulties bonding with other people, to name just a few. These effects go well beyond the more obvious sexual dysfunction which, in and of itself, SHOULD NOT be downplayed in its overall significance.

    I have used the phrase “selfish indifference” to describe what many clients have reported to me. And this does not even address the more serious problems when “akathisia” sets in and a patient experience’s an agitated depression and/or a disabling of their morale “conscience” which can both lead to very dangerous and harmful behaviors.

    Once again, Lawrence you HAVE NOT addressed the issues of the operative brain principles related to “homeostasis” and “down regulation.”

    And Lawrence, since you have not retracted your view that many of us are somehow repeating the same errors of Biological Psychiatry related to the “chemical imbalance” theory, I will throw in a few other questions here.

    How does your “totally placebo effect theory” explain the fact that there is scientific evidence that antidepressant drugs will eventually lead to a reduction in serotonin receptors in the brain due to the “down regulation” effect?

    And similarly, how does your analysis explain the scientific fact that prolonged use of “antipsychotic”/neuroleptics drugs (which block dopamine in the brain) leads to an actual increase in D2 dopamine receptors in the brain, which now becomes responsible for the “super-sensitivity” effect related to severe withdrawal problems when these drugs are stopped, AND is most likely responsible for the common experience of breakthrough psychosis while still on these drugs?

    And finally Lawrence, why have you not addressed your incorrect references to benzodiazepines while misusing the words “addiction” and “addictive?”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • mjms1165

    A quick response to your question regarding “where is the evidence:”

    First off, an important part of Robert Whitaker’s book “Anatomy of an Epidemic” provides numerous academic studies that detail some evidence neuro-chemical disturbance by psychiatric drugs.

    AND every single book published by Dr. Peter Breggin going back to his first major thesis titled “Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain” which I first read in 1991, details a large amount of scientific evidence that all psychiatric drugs disable brain function.

    AND how about the important connection that psychiatric drugs have to the ever increasing rates of suicide, and their role in the spate of mass shootings over the past several decades – is this not a real life example of the dangers of disturbing the thinking process centers of the brain and those areas where human morality resides?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Your blog contains some valuable exposure of Biological Psychiatry’s Medical Model and their “genetic theories of original sin” that provide the theoretical backdrop for the enormous harm caused by a profession that pledges to “do no harm.” Pimping off of the placebo effect is only PART of their overall crimes within this deadly paradigm of so-called “treatment.”

    Your blog also contains several incorrect points as well, that unfortunately let’s Biological Psychiatry and their criminal Medical Model off the hook, AND denies aspects of the tragic reality faced by millions of its victims.

    A big part of the harm caused by the promise of antidepressant drugs (as well as all the other categories of psych drugs) is the EXPECTATION by patients that they should be getting better (as advertised and hyped by several hundred billion dollars of advertising over many decades), AND when they don’t get better AND usually get worse, THEN they REALLY feel F$%ked up. Many people now draw the often deadly conclusion that their “disease/illness” is somehow much worse than everyone else’s, AND they will NEVER get better.

    And part of the reason people don’t get better BESIDES the fact that they are focused on a quick fix in the form of a pill/drug (instead of attempting to solve the nature of their conflict with their environment) is the ACTUAL DAMAGED caused by the drugs themselves.

    Your blog denies the harmed caused by perturbing the sertonergic, dopamanergic, and/or the gaba receptor system etc. in the brain. Do you not accept the principle of “homeostasis” and “down regulation” and then acknowledge the harm caused by the alteration, disruption, and possible damaged created by the long term use of these psychiatric drugs affecting these brain systems?

    How do you explain the ENORMOUS problems millions of people are having with withdrawal problems related to these drugs, where these withdrawal symptoms are often protracted, including some lasting for years, and some residual effects that never seem to totally abate?

    We know that 90% of the neuro-chemical, serotonin, functions outside the brain, and also in parts of the brain that have no alleged connection to mood etc. How can you conclude that critics of the “chemical imbalance” theory are repeating the same mistakes of Biological Psychiatry by exposing the harm and dangers caused by deliberate disturbance of the serotonergic system with antidepressant drugs?

    AND what about the damage that benzos do to the gaba receptor system in the brain? Are you denying the reality reported and faced by the tens of thousands of benzo victims seeking counsel from citizen scientists leading and participating in the numerous internet forums gaining worldwide attention?

    And on the benzo question, you included a comment in reference to benzos as “…these addictive pills…” and also the term “sedative/addictive drugs.” If you read several of the blogs on benzodiazepines that have been written at MIA you would be scientifically persuaded to use, with extreme caution, ANY reference to “addiction” when referring to these drugs.

    Yes, benzos can be, and are, used in an “addictive way by some people. And as I have written here at MIA, I believe they are often THE key component in the deadly cocktails of drugs that include opiates, that end up killing so many people – my estimates are up to 50% of all overdose deaths may involve benzos. And this is one reason why this poly-drug overdose crisis WILL NEVER slow down until this reality is understood and exposed.

    BUT the vast majority of people prescribed benzos ARE NOT ADDICTED to these drugs but instead are IATROGENICALLY DEPENDENT. This is an important, and qualitatively different distinction, that more scientifically describes the actual effect these drugs have on their victims, AND places the blame squarely where it belongs – on the front door step of Biological Psychiatry, Big Pharma, and the leaders of organized medicine. To misuse the term “addiction” and/or “addicted” here is to fall into the “blame the victim” trap promoted by the institutions responsible for this worldwide benzodiazepine crisis.

    So Lawrence, I appreciate your efforts to further deconstruct the Medical Model and criticize Biological Psychiatry. You make several good points, but your overall thesis here is seriously undermined by some major errors in thinking and analysis.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Congratulations on creating such a valuable and creative form of political art that exposes Psychiatry and their entire oppressive System of “mental health.”

    I believe we often underestimate the value of all forms of art as a means to expose the forces of oppression and rally people to take action. Sometimes a creative piece of artwork can reach people in a way that other forms of political exposure are unable to accomplish.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bravo to Peter Breggin for writing this vitally important story.

    I must say that these installments of this tragic story are an incredible indictment of Biological Psychiatry and the entire Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/ Industrial/Complex.

    I must also admit that as much as I consider myself a major critic and activist against this whole system, I was to some degree under the influence of the type of toxic propaganda that has been spewed by the news media coverage of this story. My view of this young woman and these tragic events was, indeed, poisoned by the powerful influences of this System’s pervasive media.

    I always tell people to pay attention to the “narrative” of a person’s story and always ask “why” and “how” someone came to behave in a certain way – no matter how bizarre or violent. Somehow in this case, with Michelle Carter, I dropped my guard and violated my own critical thinking skills. I hope this never happens again.

    Thank you Peter Breggin for digging so deeply beneath the surface to expose the true forces and institutions (Psychiatry and Big Pharma) who are ultimately responsible for these horrible and sad actions and behaviors by such young and innocent victims in our society.

    I think this blog series should be spread around far and wide. I do believe it can play an important role in waking people up to the horror of today’s “mental health” system, because it contains so many “holy shit!” type moments as you read the details of the story.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    I was disappointed that you chose to not respond to my critique of Freud and to the political importance of the most conscious and advanced thinking psychiatrists calling for their own profession to be abolished.

    This type of stance by psychiatrists would NOT mean that they would suddenly need to abandon their credentials and stop functioning as a psychiatrists in the world. On the contrary, there would be an enormous amount of work they could be doing to counter all forms of psychiatric abuse and the Medical Model.

    For example, these politically conscious psychiatrists could raise hell by challenging Biological Psychiatry in every gathering and meeting of organized psychiatry on the planet.

    They could also organize a cadre of psychiatrists that would study the science of psychiatric drug withdrawal and launch efforts to provide medically credentialed support to the millions of people trying to get off of these toxic substances.

    They could offer to testify at thousands of legal trials where Big Pharma, the APA, and organized medicine are being sued for criminal negligence in all the suicides and mass shootings where psychiatric drugs have played a key role.

    There will be many decades of work and the need for many major Revolutionary changes in society before we are even close to having the material conditions in the world to actually abolish Psychiatry.

    BUT, can you say the this is NOT the highest moral stance that needs to be taken by the most conscious psychiatrists in the world? Is it not important for the most conscious AND moral psychiatrists to look beyond their own narrow guild interests in these times and take a political stance that could truly hasten the end of all forms of psychiatric abuse?

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Thanks for the response. I completely agree that there are some psychiatrists who have helped people in the past, and today, there is a small minority who do very positive things in exposing the truth and helping people.

    However, I definitely would not include Freud on the positive side of history. While some of his concepts and theories regarding the “unconscious” have some merit, it is also true that he was very much a political coward who put his career aspirations far above the search for the truth.

    And his fatal decision (early in his career) to deny the objective truth of the numerous examples of sexual abuse disclosed by many of his female patients, and then instead develop a theory claiming they were instead some form of sexual fantasies, has overall done enormous harm (primarily to women) over many decades.

    It is very clear that Freud’s decision was a cowardly response to the early derisive responses from his colleagues regarding his reporting of high rates of sexual abuse.

    And finally, Lawrence, just because there is a tiny minority of mainly older psychiatrists who do (or have done) some positive things, begs the question as to whether or not psychiatry should be abolished.

    Psychiatrists who want to do therapy can call themselves psychologists or therapists. Those who want to study and treat the brain (or other neurological problems) can call themselves neurologists.

    To allow the continuation of a medical specialty that alleges to treat mind “maladies” or “diseases,” is to sustain and promote the myth of “mental illness” and the continuation of the Medical Model which does enormous harm in the world.

    It is very important for politically and scientifically conscious psychiatrists to take a moral and just stand that their own profession needs to be abolished. This will hasten the historical demise of all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This Time article is just a very sophisticated regurgitation of Biological Psychiatry’s Disease/Drug Based Medical Model. It repeats every fraudulent lie about psychiatric drugs and the so-called “chemical imbalance” theory. It shows how Big Pharma and Psychiatry are now moving on to develop Ketamine type drugs as a “new frontier” in depression “treatment.”

    All this just shows how deeply embedded Biological Psychiatry is in our culture and within the consciousness of the masses. There are two “realities” out there as to what defines “mental illness” and the ways to address problems of psychological distress.

    This scientific and political duality is connected to, and very similar, to the different or “alternative facts” and “realities” between those who support and believe Trump, and those who oppose this developing Fascist trend.

    It is becoming more and more apparent that it may take an actual Civil War to somehow resolve this growing division in society. Big Pharma and Biological Psychiatry have simply become “too big and powerful to fail.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lawrence

    Good blog. I believe it is is important to add to your point about all human thoughts, feelings and behaviors being expressed in some type of neuro-chemical fashion.

    The important addition I would make is that these expressions would all take on an individual character from each and every different person. In other words, there would be no one neuro-chemical expression for all forms of depression, anxiety etc. This is just another reason to discount, deconstruct, and dismantle Biological Psychiatry’s efforts to impose a Medical Model on human behavior, thoughts and feelings etc.

    Lawrence, psychiatry is a scientifically fraudulent and oppressive institution that does enormous harm in the world. While you are helping to deconstruct their Medical Model with this blog, why is it that you do not, therefore, call for psychiatry (as a medical specialty) to abolished?

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Jocelyn

    Great blog that challenges the Establishment’s on going efforts to avoid any thorough going exposure of the worldwide benzodiazepine crisis. The focus on Xanax is a way to misdirect people away from the pervasive corruption that permeates Psychiatry, Big Pharma, and organized medicine when it comes to the prolific prescribing of all psychiatric drugs; benzos are clearly some of THE most harmful and deadly.

    If the depths of this crisis (involving the harm caused by ALL benzos) were truly understood by the general public, it would be extremely threatening to these particular major medical institutions. The business of “treating” anxiety and depression in our society – two of the biggest “symptoms” of an overall System that is truly sick and dying, is both necessary and highly profitable.

    Unfortunately, only the very rich and famous celebrities get all the publicity when it comes to some of the harm caused by benzos and other drugs, BUT even in these very public overdose deaths the true role of benzos is still very much hidden from the public. Please check out my blog from last year titled “Who and What Killed Prince and Michael Jackson: Will the Role of Benzos Ever Be Revealed.”
    https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/08/what-killed-prince-and-michael-jackson-will-the-role-of-benzos-ever-be-revealed/

    Jocelyn, keep writing on this issue. And your YOU TUBE videos are very powerful and a life savior to many people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Henry

    Thank you for this very interesting analysis of the historical forces influencing the critically important role of science in our society.

    I want to pose some provocative differences with some of your conclusions regarding both the problem and the solution to having true and unbiased science as a liberating force for human progress.

    You said: “In a drastically oversimplified nutshell, one might describe pre-WWII science as a cottage industry carried on by independent intellectual entrepreneurs motivated primarily by curiosity in seeking truths about the natural world, not beholden to patrons and subsisting typically in ivory towers undisturbed by social, political, commercial interference; science was free to be its own thing.”

    This above statement leaves out the very important history of the role of religion as a distorting influence holding back human progress and sometimes viciously punishing, any and all, those whose scientific endeavors somehow threatened religious doctrine. Political power in society usually benefited from these religious pogroms because, religion itself, has historically reinforced acceptance of both slave and class based forms of oppression.

    And looking at the situation today, Psychiatry and its Diseased/Drug Based paradigm of so-called “treatment” (with all its “genetic theories of original sin”) very much shifts the focus in society AWAY from any critical appraisal of the inherent problems with both the economic and corresponding political system. It’s all about bad genes and brain chemical/PERSONAL DEFICIENCIES rather than the defects in our particular economic or political institutions.

    And I would argue that over the past 4 decades Psychiatry and Big Pharma (as an institutions in society) have become too big and essential to the status quo to be allowed “to fail.” Especially looking at the role that these backward forces play as institutions of “social control,” drugging and incarcerating (in penal and psych hospital jails) those sectors in society who are potentially the most radical creative agents of social change and possibly a force for revolutionary change.

    As for your idea of a “science court,” in theory this sounds good, but without any FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES away from this profit based economic and political system, this would ultimately be corrupted and fail. Just as we are suppose to have a true democracy in this country, is it not a total and complete sham and illusion, controlled and manipulated by the 1% percenter/ruling class?

    The political and social role of Psychiatry as an instrument of “social control,” and the role of Big Pharma (with their enormous profit levels) are now such an essential part of the U.S. economy, that they both stand (along with the capitalist system that both sustains and depends on them) as major impediments to the liberating role of science and of ALL human progress.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Chrys

    Thanks for the positive feedback and thanks for the update on all your activities, including the bumps in the road in your life’s trajectory.

    You are clearly a “survivor” in every sense of that word. You have such a positive attitude about pushing forward and experiencing every aspect of life, despite any and all setbacks.

    You have quite a collection of songs and you carry yourself very well musically. I like that woman singer you have on your Facebook as well.

    It sounds like you are on the cutting edge of providing some very helpful resources for those people experiencing severe emotional distress. I hope you write about this at MIA.

    Sue says hi and is impressed with all that you do and accomplish.

    All the best,
    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • THERE IS NO OPIOID OVERDOSE CRISIS!

    Very few people ever die from a single dose of a drug in the opioid family. AND PRINCE DID NOT DIE FROM A FENTANYL OVERDOSE!

    This is a POLY-DRUG OVERDOSE CRISIS where BENZODIAZEPINES play a particularly deadly role in these overdoses. Prince, Michael Jackson, and almost all these other celebrities that have died of a drug overdose have had one or more benzos in their system at the time of their death.

    BENZOS are often “THE” DECISIVE component in a deadly cocktail of drugs ingested by those people dying from a poly-drug overdose.

    And Psychiatry has played a DECISIVE role in creating the conditions for the massive over prescribing of benzos in the world.

    Benzos have a documented role of at least 30% involvement in overdose deaths. I believe that figure would be much closer to 5o% if all the statistics were readily available and accessible for evaluation.

    Sixty percent of all regular opiate users also use benzos on a regular basis. Benzos greatly magnify the “high” when combined with opiates.

    We need to challenge all those who continue to label this an “opioid crisis.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Slaying the Dragon of Psychiatry

    Thanks for the compliment. Once I had the lyrics you quoted above, I knew I had something important to complete and get out to the people.

    My youngest daughter, who is not a survivor, did the video editing and helped me pick out the best images and find the best places to put them in the video.

    The picture of the woman hiding her face (in obvious distress) next to the tree, is the one that gets to me the deepest every time I see it – “With nights that linger so long/ They’ll darken the brightest day.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sonja

    That was one of the most in depth and meaningful comments to anything I’ve ever written at MIA. Your support for my work on this video and your suggestions for changes in my blog were incredibly valuable and validating to me.

    Just as you believe “Benzo Blue” validates the experience of benzo victims/survivors, your words and support also validates me. I’ve been at this (trying to make Revolutionary changes in society) since 1968. It is hard not lose faith that these kind of changes are possible in the world.

    Your call to action to all survivors (who are able), is the kind of passion and commitment that is vitally needed in this movement. We do have to find the ways to ignite those sparks of rebellion that can someday very suddenly erupt into a prairie fire of mass action that will lead to the necessary systemic changes in society.

    Sometimes we may not even be aware that the material conditions (which have been developing and changing in seemingly imperceptible ways) are ready to explode in rebellion. So we all must persevere to not miss these historic opportunities when they arise.

    The world is now a very volatile place to live and there will be dramatic changes in the not to distant future. HOWEVER it is not clear which historical direction these changes will take us – forward or backwards (towards more fascist control and oppression). It is up to us to mobilize and make sure this direction will be FORWARD.

    Over the past 4 decades Psychiatry and their Disease/Drug Based paradigm of so-called “treatment” has gotten stronger DESPITE some very significant scientific and political exposure in the past 2 decades. Benzo prescriptions are rising as we speak. Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry profit levels (and their system of social control) may have become “too big to fail” for the current economic and political system.

    So the movement we are trying to build here cannot ONLY focus on single incremental issues or have a strategy of “going it alone” separate from other movements challenging the status quo. We all must raise our heads and see the big picture here while we search out multiple allies in this broad based struggle for major social change. I do believe the struggle against psychiatric abuse can be an important tributary feeding a much larger river that someday may “wash away the old and sweep in the new.”

    Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win! Comradely,Richard

    Report comment

  • BigPictureAwareness

    I had some time to spend with your comment.

    Thanks for the responses to my music video. It is always nice when someone is inspired to actually quote the words from one of your songs or poems.

    You said: “My only concern is whether this meditation on the material world and the truth of what happens to people is a clear-eyed perception of reality, or an anger-rage fueled and vainglorious desire for revenge. Are these songs you speak of truly organizing or agonizing,…”

    I am definitely seeking a “…a clear-eyed perception of reality…” and I believe, while there is some definite room for “anger and rage” in our responses to oppression, I think we definitely need to avoid “revenge.” Because “revenge” will eventually eat you up and cause people to take on the mantra of their enemies; all of which will derail our efforts to make a more humane world through Revolutionary change.

    However, just punishment for those (in the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex) who have committed gross crimes of fraud and criminal/medical negligence, is a prerequisite for change to occur in any thorough going way in the world. This, however, will require mass movements toward change, and we have a ways to in order to achieve those conditions.

    In fact, I will say that, unless and until, the material conditions exists in the world for their to be true justice dished out to those in power who oppress people, than there will be NO substantial change towards ending the miscarriages of justice such as the worldwide benzo crisis.

    I am from the school of thought that says “I am therefore I think.” But I appreciate the role of dreams and mythology to help illuminate the real world and provide different forms of art and entertainment.

    Good to hear from you and have your encouragement,

    Richard

    Report comment

  • J.Doe

    I can’t tell how important your comment is to me. Of course, you and your powerful blogs at MIA were an important inspiration for this song. And all the other people who have written about their benzo experiences are also in this song.

    Knowing that someone became tearful watching the video brings tears to my eyes. It is is the kind of emotion that makes us feel the most human and want to make this world a far more humane and just place to live. I know that it is wishful thinking that by July 11th 2022 (“…and there will be no mercy when psychiatry finally has its day…”) some of the people responsible for this worldwide benzo crisis might be tried in a court of law and justly punished, so we clearly have much work to do ahead of us. Carry on!

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    I agree that we should always make credible statements. But the thrust of your arguments of late (in defenses of Psychiatry) is to DENY the critical role of a vanguard (and vanguard like statements) in overcoming and ending all forms of psychiatric abuse. All this should point to the ultimate demise of Psychiatry as a medical specialty.

    Was there not an important role for those people in the 1960’s who made slogans such “Get the F%$K Out of the War Now!” And those people who actually had slogans favoring the NLF achieving victory over the U.S.

    When I first saw these slogans (before I became politically conscious) I found them rather shocking. But they certainly did promote much intense discussion and a desire on my part to find out how someone could take such a provocative position. All this led me in the direction of becoming more radical and to taking a more decisive stand against the Vietnam war.

    Your whole approach at MIA of late is to “tail” after the struggle and urge everyone to avoid “being too extreme.” In the 1960’s and 1970’s we use to call these kind of people “firemen” – constantly trying to water down the struggle and keep the embers of rebellion from erupting into a full blown conflagration.

    Time to reexamine your role here.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    You said: “My point is simply that we should take care to only blame psychiatrists for what they are actually responsible for, and no more.”

    And when we do blame Psychiatry for ALL the things they ARE actually responsible for (even those things you would agree with) somehow it NOT enough for you to call for Psychiatry to be abolished.

    It seems like in all the recent discussions at MIA you are so quick to come in and somehow defend Psychiatry , or at least, LESSEN the impact of the totality of their crimes, and the implications for Psychiatry’s future.

    Why are you SO interested in defending Psychiatry? Do you feel this is somehow a threat to your own professionalism as a therapist and educator in the System?

    If I was a conspiracy theorist ….., but I’m not, so I won’t go there. But I am pointing out a trend here that is worth taking a look at.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    Your ideal consent form in its essence says that Psychiatry has no right to exist because it is based on fraudulent and harmful science.

    So let’s cut to the chase and call for Psychiatry to be abolished.

    There is no such thing as true “informed consent,” nor can there be, as long as Psychiatry has the amount of power it is allowed to currently possess.

    And as long as we live in a profit based society Psychiatry WILL be granted this type of oppressive power. So discussing what true “informed consent” would look like is interesting, but it is an unobtainable “pipe dream” short of actually abolishing Psychiatry once and for all.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “Unfortunately none of the self-described “revolutionary vanguard” organizations currently in existence seem to have a clue about any of this…”

    For this we should not be all that surprised since this may be the last human rights struggle of great significance. As more radical activists from OUR movement link up with all the other tributaries of struggle, it will certainly bring to those struggles our thoroughgoing deconstruction of the Medical Model. And the bigger our movement becomes the less it will be able to be ignored and/or misunderstood.

    They will simply not be able to ignore or avoid dealing with these issues as the overall struggle against the System intensifies. Just as the women’s movement asserted itself during and after the 60’s upheaval.

    And if it continues to be ignored or downplayed as new Revolutionary changes take place, then there just may have to be a “revolution within the revolution.” Whatever the case, none of these obstacles should discourage us, or cause us to be defeatist or hesitant about doing what is historically necessary to advance our struggle against ALL forms of oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Matt and others

    Matt, you said: ” The sad thing is, they [psychiatrists] are not actually bad people, and they could do much better, if they had accurate information about the nature of severe distress and the serious harms of neuroleptics.”

    A question is raise here: When do people who continue to do “bad” things even when they are increasingly exposed to knowledge that their behavior is doing “bad” things to people, finally get labeled as “bad” people???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob, Bonnie, and John

    Bob, thank you again for MIA and your willingness to be so open about your evolving political perspective on these vitally important matters.

    I do see some value in giving “critical psychiatry” a forum because it does expose more of the underbelly of Psychiatry and creates more favorable conditions for splits to occur within the institution. This will help set the stage for more people to eventually see Psychiatry for what it is in the real world and migrate towards becoming full blown “anti-psychiatry,” and for the institution to ultimately be dissolved of any medical or legal credibility in our society. This helps create the material conditions in the world for Psychiatry to be finally “abolished.”

    The anti-psychiatry movement, like any other radical movement in history, will be vilified and labeled with all sorts of discrediting descriptions. But, if it both scientifically and morally makes sense to abolish Psychiatry, then it must be supported, AND we must work hard to help people understand why this is a just political and moral position.

    It is up to us, through our painstaking work, to show that the anti-psychiatry movement is, not only, highly compassionate and ethically astute in its analysis, BUT also, consistently RUTHLESSLY SCIENTIFIC in its ability to apply science to deconstructing the Disease/Drug Based Medical Model. We will gain followers by always staying on this “high road” and never watering down our politics or falling into some form of reformism.

    As to whether or not “abolishing Psychiatry” is a reasonable goal given the way the world is currently constructed. Looking at the world 40 years ago, some type of “attrition model” of abolishing Psychiatry MAY have made sense and been possible to take place over the long term within the current Capitalist/Imperialist system.

    However, several important factors in the world that have occurred in the past 4 decades that now make this “attrition” approach not realistic or possible:

    1) There has been over 4 decades of one of the most complete and successful PR campaigns (involving several hundred billion dollars of deceptive propaganda) of political brainwashing in the history of the modern world. Biological Psychiatry’s “chemical imbalance” dominating, Disease/Drug Based Medical Model has now become so deeply entrenched among the masses that it would require major “Revolutionary” changes in society to uproot this way of thinking.

    2) The pharmaceutical industry is such a vital cog in the U.S. economy, and one of the most expansive and profitable, that it has become literally “too big and important to fail.” Psychiatric drugs have played a decisive role in boosting and expanding Big Pharma in this period, and helped it become such a vitally important segment of the U.S. economy.

    3) The world has qualitatively changed since 9/11, and it has become a more volatile and dangerous place to live and to maintain nation states and the various international alliances. And U.S. Imperialism has become increasingly more isolated and tenuous as the the #1 empire in the world.

    4) All this makes the role of Psychiatry, with its mass drugging, its misleading focus on its “genetic theories of original sin” as the central human problem, and forced hospitalizations/incarcerations etc. – such a necessary and important means and method of SOCIAL CONTROL throughout society. For obvious reasons they are targeting (with drugs and labels) those sectors of society that have historically been the most prone to becoming political activists against the System.

    5) For all of the above reasons, I don’t believe “abolishing” Psychiatry is possible within this current Capitalist/Imperialist system. But this DOES NOT MEAN it is an incorrect, or somehow a Utopian slogan and/or political goal to be raising at this time.

    Do people really believe that we can save the planet from environmental disaster WITHOUT major systemic changes in how our society is organized and governed??? The very same questions could be raised about ending racial oppression or women’s oppression on a global scale.

    I believe that the movement to end all forms of psychiatric abuse, and ultimately abolish Psychiatry, can be a vitally important tributary in a world wide river of upheaval transforming the entire planet into a more humane and just place to live. So in the context of the above political analysis that I have sketched out here, to be “anti-psychiatry” makes perfect sense, and it is morally the only position I can live with in this “crazy” world at this time.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Richard

    I agree that many chronic pain patients have been scapegoated and abandoned by the very system that created the current poly-drug overdose crisis. I use the term “poly-drug crisis” because very few people ever die from opiate drugs by themselves.

    However, I must disagree with much of the rest of your analysis of this problem.

    You said: “… among the estimated 100 million Americans affected by persistent, long-lasting pain (by the American Academies of Medicine). Within this group, an estimated 16 Million are treated in any given year for recurrent persistent pain, and on the order of 3 Million are treated for more than 90 days with opioid analgesics.”

    The so-called “…100 million Americans affected by persistent, long lasting pain…” sound like a highly inflated figure that only serves the needs and interests of the pharmaceutical and pain medicine industry. This sounds very similar to the extremely high figures of so-called “mental illness” estimated and promoted by Biological Psychiatry to sell all their oppressive forms of “treatment.” These are exactly the kinds of statistics that lead to over “treatment,” including more drug prescriptions.

    And some of the organizations you listed as positive sources of information and support, such as The American Academy of Pain Medicine, The American Academy of Integrative Pain Management, and U.S. Pain Foundation, where were they back in the 1990’s when the 5th Vital Sign Campaign was initiated and then promoted the proliferation of pain clinics and pill mills that spread all the country fueling the rapid rise in opiate prescriptions? And what are THEIR current connections to the pharmaceutical industry – how many of their members are on Big Pharma’s payroll? You cannot deny the fact that they have a direct stake in having a high number of pain patients to treat in this country.

    You said: ” The most effective interventions for confirmed addiction are medication-assisted.”

    This statement could have come out of the mouths of the most ardent supporters of Biological Psychiatry and CANNOT be substantiated by LEGITIMATE statistics or studies. And “medication assisted treatment” is the new euphemistic term that describes “opiate replacement therapy” because the latter term is not so much socially accepted by the public. And of course today many addiction patients are also guinea pigs for a host of other mind altering psych drugs. ADDICTION IS NOT A DISEASE AND DRUGS ARE NOT THE CURE.

    I am not saying that some of these drugs such as suboxone should never be used or don’t have a SHORT TERM ROLE in helping some people break their addiction problems. But these drugs, including methadone, are grossly overused in long term “maintenance” programs which are both highly profitable and also become an oppressive means of social control in our society. And these drug replacement programs ARE NOT solving the drug problems, including overdose epidemic, in this country.

    And given the 100 million yearly benzo prescriptions (mostly long term) in this country, giving out MORE synthetic opiates to people with addiction problems is a recipe for even MORE overdose deaths. This is especially true given that I agree with the statistic you include that probably 50% of all overdose deaths involve benzos, where I believe benzos may actually be the decisive component in the deadly drug cocktail.

    And finally, while I believe chronic pain is an issue for a certain segment of the population, I also believe that organized medicine (as a whole) doesn’t have a clue how to treat the problem and most of their treatments have made the problems worse for patients. While I believe that pain drugs have a role in some treatment regimens, overall it SHOULD NOT BE THE MAIN FORM OF TREATMENT. Unfortunately, once drugs have been administered for an extended time it makes it very difficult to switch course in treatment. This is why I stated in my first sentence that the Medical Establishment is now prepared to scapegoat and abandon these patients because they created a problem they have no idea how to solve.

    There is evidence in many of these chronic pain cases of “opioid induced hyperalgesia,” where long term use of these drugs INCREASES pain sensitivity by lowering a person’s pain/frustration threshold for tolerance. These drugs (over time) often lead to less activity and physical motion by those taking them which will also exacerbate pain issues by increasing body stiffness and ultimately affecting mood related problems.

    These are clearly complicated problems but just freeing up easier access and/or opposing more restriction of opiate drugs is also NOT the answer. Certainly the lessons of the Portuguese experiment is definitely worth further examination. And as far as rewriting new guideline for pain treatment in this country, I would place very little trust in including a group of “pain management physicians” to come up with safe and effective protocols. Their track record is not very good.

    Richard Lewis

    Report comment

  • Kindredspirit

    In NO WAY was this a criticism of you. And I am not suggesting people should not read this material or watch CCHR videos. They can be instructive in many ways, especially if we can tract down the sources for their information and statistics so we can use it in our own anti-Psychiatry political work.

    I only bring this up because I believe very strongly that Scientology is a dangerous (powerful and well funded) cult that should be avoided at all costs, including any kind of unknown connections.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “Also, on a “yes, but…” note, it remains undeniable that some of the best anti-psychiatry documentaries have been done by CCHR/Scientology (without promoting their own “brand”).”

    Their strategy of not openly promoting their “brand” is all part of their sneaky and deceptive methods of political organizing for Scientology.

    The same thing goes for “Natural News” which is another internet front for Scientology. Even some people in this blog were promoting how good this website is without knowing that it is a Scientology front group.

    Now if someone were to start quoting that source, this would give Psychiatry and the Establishment another easy opening to label us all Scientologists.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I addressed you because of the following comment you made further down this comment section:

    “P.S. I don’t think that “intolerance” of “abolitionist” language is the problem, it’s the insistence that one can only be anti-psychiatry if they DO use it. It seems more like a loyalty oath or something at this point.”

    In this case language matters very much. Again, read all the so-called political justifications for NOT using “abolish.” It is very revealing of a “reformist” and/or “defeatist” approach, either consciously or unconsciously.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You said: “… doctors provide patients with harmful treatments because they demand them, and because they pay good money for them. Would they be doing so if their patient victims were told the truth? Big question mark. Should doctors be selling these harmful treatments?”

    None of this could really exist if there wasn’t a Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex that spends billions of dollars of PR marketing campaigns every year brainwashing the masses into believing they need drugs and psychiatric “treatment.”

    This has everything to do with the type of economic and political system we live under. This is NOT “free”choice going on here and never will be as long as this System exists.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead, Bonnie, and All

    Bonnie said: “… we are not simply arguing about words. We are arguing basic principles–bottom lines And while semantics is surely involved here, it is not just a matter of semantics. Also it is hardly just bullshit. It makes a huge difference whether people declare themselves opposed to coercive psychiatry only or whether they declare themselves opposed to psychiatry period.”

    I completely agree with this statement.

    It is very instructive to not only see how some people have responded to the proposed goal of “abolishing Psychiatry,” but ESPECIALLY the particular arguments they have used for opposing this radical and historically just position.

    On the one hand you have the very clear “reformist” approach coming from Ron, who is constantly cautioning everyone about being “too extreme” with our language and political positions. If his political line was followed during the 1960’s there would have been NO vanguard organizations AND the entire movement would NOT have gone nearly as far as it did. He would have been critical of Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, SDS, and the Yippies and all the other more radical groups who pushed that movement as far as it was able to advance in the face of great resistance on the part of the System. And while all of these groups made mistakes, their main mistakes were NOT that they were TOO FAR OUT THERE WITH THEIR POLITICAL VIEWS.

    And while i believe that Frank is politically more advanced on many of these issues than Ron, (and I side with him on most issues here) unfortunately he is repeating some of the same sort of arguments against “being too extreme” and “not alienating people” by using the terms (and principle) of a”abolishing Psychiatry.”

    Permeating many of Frank’s comments is a stance (perhaps unconscious) against the role of vanguard organizations and not grasping the importance of some people taking a more advanced position in the development of a movement for change.

    And there also seems to be a theme in his comments and a belief that a world without psychiatry is not really possible (or it is somehow utopian), so maybe we should lower our sights and settle for something less. It is this kind of belief system that often leads people to fall into incrementalism and various forms of reformism.

    I hope Frank is open to taking a deeper look at this trend in his writings, and I do understand very clearly (and more so now) why Bonnie will not compromise on the “bottom line” of “abolition,” nor will I.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    I agree, his willingness to pragmatically align himself with Scientology was a big mistake on his part and it did hurt the Movement. And it still comes up today in many ways.

    And I will add this about Szasz, while he made enormous contributions deconstructing Psychiatry and the Medical Model, his love affair with “free” market capitalism and Libertarianism blinded him to the historical significance of the uprisings around the the world during the 1960’s.

    This ideological and political “blind spot” kept him from linking the oppressive nature of Psychiatry and the growing struggle against it, with the powerful movements against the Vietnam War and the growing Black Liberation/Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Movement. And I doubt he would have been willing to criticize the role of Psychiatry as a form of social control helping to perpetuate and sustain multiple forms of class oppression throughout society.

    It also makes you wonder how far he would have been willing to go in criticizing the profit hungry pharmaceutical industry and the criminal nature of their fraudulent marketing of psychiatric drugs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    You said: ” There is no such thing as non-coercive psychiatry. There are only degrees of coercion.”

    You are more clear and correct to state it this way. When I was using “non-coercive psychiatry” in my above comment that said:

    “There is actually FAR MORE social control going on in the world from NON-COERCIVE Psychiatry than there is from that which is coercive.”

    I was referring to the more obvious and open forms of coercive psychiatry, like forced hospitalization and forced drugging. In the final analysis ALL Psychiatry in today’s world is “coercive.”

    In the same way that a woman may end up remaining in a very abusive relationship with a man, there are always very overt as well as many subtle (and culturally influenced) forms of coercion going on. But in the broadest sense of understanding the concept of “freedom of choice,” these are NOT “free” choices.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    I agree with Bonnie about the current nature of this discussion regarding the concept of, and movement to, “abolish Psychiatry.”

    We are going around in circles with you, mainly because you are “stuck” in a defensive mode of discourse here. The weaknesses in your arguments have been clearly elucidated and you still refuse to acknowledge and address these contradictions. I am done for now.

    And finally you said: “I’m not expecting to convince anybody of anything straight off the bat. It may take a long time for an idea to germinate. In that case, I’VE GOT TIME.(emphasis added)”

    Yes, it does take a long time for certain ideas and movements to germinate. But NO!!! WE DON’T HAVE THE TIME NOW TO FUTZ AROUND ANYMORE and play word games when it comes to building a theoretical and organizational presence in the world for abolishing Psychiatry.

    You can stay stuck, while others will go forward NOW to further advance this vitally important process that was initiated in years past. Frank, history must, and will, pass you by on this issue.

    I respect your stances on many other issues related to our movement, but on this issue you are presenting obstacles and roadblocks with some sort of word game of intellectual gymnastics. I am prepared to move forward without you.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You have not responded to the content of my criticism of your prior comments; you now seem to be evading the discussion.

    You said above: ” Maybe you need to ask them why they’re buying it [psychiatry]? I’m not buying it. I’m not in treatment. I’m not in the system.”

    Frank, maybe they’re just not just as smart as you. Or maybe they are truly “informed” people who love Psychiatry and love being f#%ked over.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You said: “To my way of thinking, it is worse to harm someone who is aware they are being harmed against their will and wishes than it is to harm someone you have bamboozled into thinking that what harms them benefits them. ”

    Tell this to all the millions of victims of the worldwide benzodiazepine and SSRI crisis.

    You said: “When medicine has become an excuse for social control, I don’t think medicine is the problem, social control is the problem.”

    There is actually FAR MORE social control going on in the world from NON-COERCIVE Psychiatry than there is from that which is coercive.

    And lastly you said: “You could actually abolish psychiatry without abolishing forced mental health treatment.”

    You are seriously contradicting yourself. Psychiatry has now become essential to the promotion and maintenance of the “mental health” system AND as a means for social control in society.

    And more importantly to consider here, is that both Psychiatry and the “mental health” system have become such vital cogs (over the past 40 years) in preserving social control in this Imperialist Empire that NEITHER will go out of existence, unless and until, the Empire falls and is replaced with an entirely different system.

    So, you might ask, why am I advocating for the abolishment of Psychiatry if I believe the Empire must fall first before this can happen???

    Because I believe that the movement against Psychiatry and the entire mental health” system can be a vitally important tributary of struggle against this entire System to help ultimately bring it down. Just as I believe the environmental movement and the struggle against racial oppression and the oppression of women will also be vitally important tributaries as well.

    The fight against all forms of psychiatric oppression and the call for abolishing Psychiatry can be an important educational tool exposing the true nature of Capitalism/Imperialism, as both a threat to the future survival of the planet, and as a roadblock to the future progress of the human species.

    Frank, It seems like you don’t see (or advocate for) an ultimate end to Psychiatry, because you don’t see the possibility of a world without the need for its existence. You are somehow ready to settle for the the ultimate utopian fantasy that non-coercive Psychiatry can actually exist in a world without there being coercive Psychiatry. Ain’t happening!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    You said: ” If psychiatry is a way of thought, I’m not out to suppress free expression of it.”

    Psychiatry is obviously much more than “a way of thought.” It is a very powerful MEDICAL INSTITUTION with more power than any other branch of medicine in that it has similar powers of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Especially, when it comes to having the right to take away someone’s freedom and forceably hospitalized and/or drug them against their will.

    I hear you saying something to the effect that “we can’t tell someone they can’t be a psychiatrist or a fortune teller.” These are VASTLY different categories of people. Telling fortunes and practicing medicine (and in Psychiatry’s case drugging and forcing people into hosp/jails) are qualitatively in a different realm of practice.

    It is one thing if a person goes around telling people they are a “pilot” or a “medical doctor.” It is a whole different thing if a person attempts to fly a plane without a proper license. That is dangerous and correctly so, against the law. It is also a whole different thing if a person simply believes they are a “doctor,” but then takes it to another level by actually attempting to practice medicine on people.

    Psychiatry is a medical specialty that also does some therapy. If Psychiatry is someday stripped of its medical license (which is a KEY STEP towards abolishing Psychiatry) then it will no longer BE Psychiatry anymore. Those people will now be ONLY practicing some type of THERAPY and BECOME some type of THERAPIST. They will NO LONGER BE A DOCTOR PRACTICING PSYCHIATRY. If they choose to continuing working with people as if they are a DOCTOR, they will be breaking the law and justly punished for committing a crime that could potentially harm people.

    We need to have to have the specialty of “pilots” to fly airplanes for travel purposes and we need it to be licensed for safety purposes. There is absolutely no societal need for Psychiatry and especially for a medical specialty that is based on totally fraudulent science and practice, and that clearly harms millions of people around the world.

    BTW, Bonnie, thank you for writing this blog. I am currently pondering the totality of your writing here.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Cole

    W-bad.org is a great website and your responses have been right on. Thank you for everything you are doing to fight this worldwide benzodiazepine crisis.

    In this discussion we can see the inherent flaws and contradictions with Libertarian thinking. They all worship at the alter of “free market” capitalism actually believing that it is somehow really “free.” In the real world it is only free for those people powerful enough (or lucky enough) to get to the top of the economic and political pyramid.

    And those people who believe in this nonsense and who are not in with the 1% at the very top, are just “wannabes” dreaming of somehow making it to the top. It is same mentality that gets millions of poor people to play the Lottery dreaming of an “individual” path to some sort of stability and happiness.

    All this WILL NOT change the world but only give us more of the same forms of human oppression while defending the status quo.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    Open Dialogue and Soteria are “outliers” hovering on the edges of the System. They are such a tiny percentage of what is overall happening to people who encounter the “mental health” system. For you to say they are somehow “…a better part of…” the “mental health” system is simply a totally ridiculous statement when looking at how small and isolated these alternatives are at this time.

    Because they are SO small and this System is SO completely dominated by Biological psychiatry, BOTH are in serious danger of either being totally crushed and/or co-opted by the System. Any serious examination of the history of social change would teach you this reality.

    I am not trying to be negative about the prospects for change WITHIN the System, I am only being realistic about what we all up against here.

    Again, you are seriously underplaying the nature of the problem here, which seriously clouds your ability to see what the solutions are and how they will have to be brought about.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Markps2

    You said: “Talk of suicide has to be put back in the closet where it belongs. If you talk of suicide you should get locked up.”

    I am surprised you would make such a backward statement. It is exactly this kind of thinking that leads to MORE suicide. People need to openly talk about such thoughts without judgement or threat of incarceration in a hospital.

    When people are told (or believe they need) to hide or suppress these thoughts it actually creates a GREATER probability they will carry out such an act.

    And part of “despair” is wondering if it is worth going on with life. These kind of life dilemmas need to be openly discussed with other human beings NOT denied or suppressed. And in the end we ALL have the right to decide whether or not we want to live or die.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To Lauren, Markps2 and all

    In the my previous blog titled “May the ‘Force’ NEVER EVER Be With You: The Case for Abolition” see link below:

    https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/10/may-force-never-ever-case-abolition/

    I make the case against the use of ALL ‘force’ without ANY exceptions. I challenge people to read this, including the very rich discussion that follows the blog. Every possible facet of this contentious issue is covered within this blog and discussion.

    Markpc2, to give this System any “room to move” on this harmful and dangerous violation of human rights is to (in the final analysis) conciliate with the “enemy” and leave the door open for greater harm in the long run. I hope you will reconsider your position.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lauren

    Thank you for standing up and fighting this oppressive “mental health” system and for targeting the specific criminal role of Psychiatry.

    Psychiatry currently has certain legal and political power in this country second only to the Executive Branch of government. With a mere signature of a pen a psychiatrist has the power to override the Constitutional Rights of any citizen by incarcerating them in a psych hospital (another form of prison) and drugging them (mind rape) against their will. There is little legal recourse against this, and the System is stacked against those attempting to fight it.

    Your public exposure of these crimes is heroic under these difficult circumstances. Even if you lose this particular legal case you will have educated more people about these forms of psychiatric abuse.

    I hope you continue to be an active participant in the MIA blog community.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    So I guess you don’t believe this System and its main (and most powerful) leadership, Psychiatry is “rotten to its core.” Since you have essentially evaded my above questions, and my response to the “foolish” label you placed on me in your prior comment.

    Then, as part of your avoidance to these questions, you totally mischaracterize my words when you say: “Calling such people and their networks “rotten to the core” is probably not the best way to win allies.”

    My references to “rotten to the core” are clearly directed at the overall “mental health” system, and to the vast majority (and core leadership) of Psychiatry.

    You twisted my words, as if I was condemning every individual working in the “System.”

    If you have read any of my past blogs and/or hundreds of comments, I have always supported and defended dissident workers, and other truly compassionate caregivers currently working inside the System. At the same time, I have always encouraged those people to take more risks in challenging the System while walking that “razor thin line” it takes to remain truly ethical while working inside an overall oppressive System.

    When looking at the System as a whole, those “programs” and “networks” and “individuals” doing really positive work are an extremely small minority of what is out there. So when making the kind of changes I am advocating, YES, the entire System needs to be dismantled, while preserving a few of these tiny exceptions.

    When I said in my prior comment “Of course people need supports of various kinds, but these will not, and cannot, be anything remotely related to what currently exists.” I was characterizing the 95% of the entire System. If you are talking about individual counselors and therapists doing overall positive work, I would put that percentage at a higher level. But much of their work is often canceled out by the mass drugging and forced hospitalizations.

    To again clarify my meaning here: there are a tiny minority of psychiatrists doing positive work in the world today. The rest are completely bought and sold and doing harm to people. Can they change and possibly “jump ship?” Of course they can, but it will not happen because people coddle them or conciliate with them. Confronting this institution with the truth about their role in the world can be very uncomfortable and painful, but it needs to happen without mincing words.

    And actually, our task here is to mainly convince people OUTSIDE of Psychiatry about this oppressive institution, for their own selfish “guild” interests blinds them to the reality of the harm they carry out. And change there will MOST DEFINITELY primarily come from the outside.

    So in conclusion Ron, I believe (based on your writings) that you do helpful work with people, but your “reformism” and defensiveness about preserving the System, and the overall UNDERSTATING of the severity of the PROBLEMS, is both troubling and misleading to those people who follow your words.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    Either you believe the current System is “rotten to the core” or you are promoting a view that it has simply gone astray and needs a few adjustments. You might even be inclined to say that it needs “major adjustments,” but even this misses just how deeply the poison of the Medical Model has permeated every pore of our entire society, let alone how completely Biological Psychiatry has totally seized control of, and has penetrated every aspect of this so-called “mental health” system.

    This System must be completely “dismantled,” otherwise we will be in danger of some of the totally corrupted elements infiltrating any new types of support systems that emerge to replace it. Of course people need supports of various kinds, but these will not, and cannot, be anything remotely related to what currently exists.

    And as long as you are still comfortable holding onto language like “mental health” to describe different ideas, feelings, and behaviors that deviate from the “norm,” it shows how even you are still very much influenced by, or willing to conciliate with this “sick” System on some level.

    The same point goes for your willingness to still accept a “medical approach to supporting recovery [in such cases} might be called “psychiatry.” ” Here again you are ready to conciliate with a “medical” or “biological” approach to supporting people in some sort of psychological distress.

    There is absolutely no scientific basis to have a medical specialty like Psychiatry, since none of the issues they are suppose to be addressing are medical in nature. And those medical issues that do affect people’s thought processes (such as thyroid problems etc.) can be dealt with by other categories of medical doctors.

    And we can certainly see the enormous harm that Psychiatry is perpetrating on this entire planet. While there is a tiny minority of psychiatrists doing positive things for people in the world, as a whole, this medical profession is also so “rotten to the core” that there is absolutely NOTHING to salvage or redeem here!

    Ron, you said: “I think it’s kind of foolish to talk about eliminating such categories completely…”

    So who’s really being “foolish” here? Given how deeply Psychiatry and THEIR system has a hold on our entire society, why would you even consider trying to reform any of this? Psychiatry currently has certain political power (which only seems to increase as each day passes) second only to the Executive Branch of our government.

    With a simple signature of a pen by a psychiatrist you can be incarcerated in a Psych Hospital/Jail, labeled and forceably drug against your will. The System’s need for this type of social control only seems to be increasing as we speak. Despite all our efforts at exposure of their faulty science and prolific drugging, Psychiatry has only gained in power and influence in the recent period. The “cabaret” goes on right under our noses and you are still calling for “reform.” How foolish is that, I ask???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The last sentence of this article reads as follows: “In the end, looking for someone to blame for the epidemic might be less useful than figuring out how to stop it.”

    The reality is that these types of crimes by Big Pharma and certain medical leaders WILL NOT STOP, unless and until, some of these CEOs are actually convicted and put in jail. Right now they are simply fined millions of dollars, which they can write off as a marketing expense.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • George

    Welcome to MIA as a writer and not just as a reader.

    I find your approach interesting, but I fear (as a first impression) that it drifts too far away from a “materialist” analysis of what is so wrong with a human environment that produces so much trauma like experiences in people’s lives. It is these real life (trauma) experiences that are most often the source of people’s need to “break” from “consensus reality” as a necessary *coping mechanism* of survival.

    You said: “So, I believe that all of us writing for MIA do so from our foolish and mad selves, hoping to bring to the debate table the missing viewpoints that have been left out of psychiatry’s consensus ideas.”

    I would point out that this above statement mischaracterizes why many people write here at MIA. There are several authors, and people who are regular participants in the discussions at MIA, that DO NOT want to somehow reform the “mental health” system. We want this System to be completely dismantled and eliminated. We believe that there are many OTHER forms of social supports that have been (and can be) created that are much more humane and successful in helping people deal with with extreme forms of psychological distress.

    And as for the future of Psychiatry, once again, there are a growing number of people who believe that Psychiatry cannot, and should not, be reformed. The main problem with this institution is NOT somehow that it has drifted away from Freud and Jung towards the “biological.”

    Psychiatry has a sordid history that predates the takeover by “Biological Psychiatry,” which has now become the worst of Psychiatry on steroids. Psychiatry is a medical specialty that is fundamentally based on fraudulent science and the incorrect understanding of what comprises those human thoughts and behaviors that get labeled as “mental illness.” These incorrect ideas and practices in the world are very harmful to millions of people.

    I do recognize that there are some INDIVIDUAL psychiatrists who are more focused on therapeutic type supports and are truly helping people in distress. And there are some other psychiatrists who are also helping people more safely taper off of toxic psychiatric drugs. These individual psychiatrist can play a positive role in the world in the coming decades.

    However, trying to REFORM Psychiatry, is misleading people as to the essential nature of this overall oppressive institution. Dissident psychiatrists should be both raising hell within their profession by targeting the criminal leaders of the biological takeover, AND pointing out the fundamental scientific and philosophical flaws within Psychiatry, in order to work towards ultimately *abolishing* Psychiatry as a medical specialty. The more honest and humane psychiatrists can then migrate towards *neurology* or *therapy* modalities as a more legitimate alternative.

    When Psychiatry has finally disappeared from our planet we will know that human society has truly advanced to a far more humane place to live.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Ron

    Good blog. I have come to understand “madness” as a very useful and important “coping mechanism” that can, not only help with a person’s survival for a period of time in their life, but also provide very useful lessons and personal growth in a very troubled world. Obviously, it can become a problem for many people if this coping mechanism somehow gets stuck in the “on position” for extended periods of time.

    You said:
    “Conversely, the “sane” typically suffer from smugness, a mistaken sense that conventional “normality” is an adequate response to the world, and an inability to understand or imagine what might go beyond that.”

    I would add that it is not just that people don’t “…understand or imagine what might go beyond that,” but they fail to see what is SO WRONG with a world that forces (through all forms of high levels of stress and/or trauma experiences) so many people to venture into the uncharted waters of madness.

    There may come a time in human history (after major revolutionary transformations in the world) when “madness,” as we currently understand it, will no longer be a necessary or useful response to one’s environment.

    Where I depart from some of the concepts of madness is when people promote a view that people are “… called to the life of a shaman” and/or start to believe that their delusions (that remain beyond a period of usefulness) are in fact real, and/or provide them with magical powers. I believe these are examples of the “romanticizing” of madness.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Humanbeing

    I know that there is now much more scrutiny of the drugs prescribed to chronic pain patients. And as it typically happens in this System, the victims of this long history of harmful prescribing are subjected to more prejudice to take people’s focus away from the real criminals. But the use of the “war” analogy is far too extreme and overstates what is actually happening here.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jeff@59, The_Cat, and AA

    Many of the things you are saying here are supporting potentially harmful and unscientific beliefs regarding both the benzodiazepine AND the opiate crisis in the world today.

    Jeff you said:
    “Benzodiazepines are not dangerous drugs, and that’s why they are listed as class 4 drugs, which means that there is a low level of dependence when using theses drugs correctly. The only people these drugs harm are the drug addicts…”

    Nothing could be further from the truth. As we speak, benzodiazepines are harming literally millions of people around the world. With rare exceptions, people who take this category of drug for longer that two weeks (including time for withdrawal) are bound to get in some type of trouble or experience serious iatrogenic damage.

    While there are some people who use these drugs in an addictive manner and yes, benzos are intimately connected to the drug (especially with opiates) overdose crisis, THE VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM BENZODIAZEPINE USE ARE TAKING THEM “AS PRESCRIBED.”

    Jeff, we don’t know all the specifics of your medical issues, but it is improper to extrapolate a whole series of medical and scientific points from your own particular personal experience, and then condemn others if it somehow it does not exactly match your own subjective experience.

    There is NO WAR ON CHRONIC PAIN PATIENTS IN THIS COUNTRY! Chronic pain pain patients are a small minority part of a much larger group of people who have been harmed by Big Pharma and the medical establishment because of a long history of unsafe and unscientific prescribing of several different categories of drugs.

    We have no way of knowing (over many years) what would have happened to chronic pain patients if they had been treated with several different types of carefully directed medical and rehabilitative protocols BEFORE ALLOWING THEM TO BECOME PHYSICALLY AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY DEPENDENT ON OPIATES AND SOMETIMES ALSO BENZOS.

    Once these drugs have been used for any significant period of time, it is extremely difficult to reverse course and go back to other medical protocols that could be potentially MORE effective. NO, these chronic pain patients SHOULD NOT BE RIPPED OFF THEIR CURRENT COCKTAIL OF PRESCRIBED DRUGS. As particular victims of the harmful prescribing patterns of organized medicine, they are entitled to the highest level of care and attention in order to solve (on an individual basis) a way to manage their pain.

    Unlimited or unrestricted access to benzos and opiates IS NOT the solution to these problems. Right Wing phrases that point the finger at “big government” being the problem are misleading at best, and they let the real criminal here off the hook.

    It IS NOT the SIZE of government that is the identified problem here, it is, rather, WHAT CLASS OF PEOPLE IS GOVERNMENT MADE UP OF, AND WHO DO THEY SERVE?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Markps2

    I am opposed to the use of force WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS. This is not a view I’ve always held, but I was educated by psychiatric survivors, my own experience working inside the system, and new studies showing the harmful effects of forced “treatment.”

    If you read my blog at MIA a few years ago (here)https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/10/may-force-never-ever-case-abolition/ you will see this subject covered from every conceivable angle. The discussion in the comment section is rich as well, especially dealing with the issue of involving the legal authorities and the jail system in these situations.

    Abolition of ‘force,’ without exception, I believe is the only truly moral and just political position one can take on this vitally important issue.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    Again, congratulations. There are many important lessons in this struggle which you have sought to educate people about.

    As to the issue of including “critical psychiatry” next to “antipsychatry,” I am not sure the best way to write this, but I do think it is important to include them as an important developing trend in the world, even though they are ultimately “reformist” when it comes to still wanting to preserve Psychiatry in the world.

    The way I see it is that IF the “critical Psychiatry” people take their use of the scientific method and their search for the truth regarding the true nature of Psychiatry in the world today to its ultimate and final conclusion. they will be forced to conclude that this fraudulent and overall harmful branch of medicine should be *abolished.* And we should do everything in our power to help them reach this conclusion. Of course, many of them will have to put aside their own self interests in order to make such an analysis and also act upon such discovered truth.

    *Abolished* not by a single legal decree, but instead systematically (through the work of anti-Psychiatry activists and others) exposed, isolated, and discredited for its oppressive use of the “Disease/Drug Based/Paradigm of so-called “treatment.” And thoroughly condemned for its legal power (second only to the Executive Branch of the U.S. government) to take way a person’s Constitutional Rights by forcibly incarcerating and drugging them in a psychiatric hospital/prison.

    When Psychiatry is ultimately stripped of these legal rights and exposed in society for its harmful and fraudulent form of so-called medicine (with its medical license also ultimately removed as well), Psychiatry will then be ignored by people and viewed as a strange and isolated sect in society, and simply “wither away” in due time.

    And all those people in society who worked towards “abolishing” Psychiatry in the above stated manner, they will have done the human species a big favor, as well as, advanced the cause of creating a freer human society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I agree Oldhead.

    AND Psychiatry has always had “guild interests” to protect and extend its influence as a medical specialty; based both on faulty science and invented concepts of “mental illness.”

    The major collusion between Psychiatry and Big Pharma that began in the late 1970’s was the advent of Biological Psychiatry; representing the very worst of psychiatry now on high doses of its own steroids. AND all this now riding a tidal wave of the pharmaceutical industry’s rapid expansion and innate drive for profit – by any means necessary.

    Four decades of perhaps the largest multi-billion dollar PR campaign and medical hoax ever perpetrated in human history, and here we are today. This extremely powerful institution of Psychiatry is now so deeply embedded in the social fabric of our society that it has become both a NECESSARY AND ESSENTIAL INSTRUMENT OF SOCIAL CONTROL preserving the continued existence of the U.S. empire.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Monica

    In Sept. of 2015 I resigned in protest from my job in community “mental health” after 23 years; I wrote a blog about this at MIA a year and a half ago. I still have a small private practice where I do therapy/coaching/helping or whatever makes the most sense (at this moment in time) to describe my relationship with people I work with.

    I always read and learn from your writings and in this case take the message as a very truthful and sobering assessment of the perils (for those people vulnerable enough in life to share their secrets with a stranger) inherent in my role/work as a so-called “therapist.”

    Over 10 years ago I briefly saw a therapist for a family issue (the person seemed like a very nice man) but I felt very uncomfortable with the entire process, especially with the issue of “trust.”

    There are less than a handful of therapists that I have worked with over the years that I had ANY trust in the quality of their ability to work with people in a counseling relationship.

    If anyone plans on doing this work with any level of integrity and safety for those they counsel, they need to constantly expose themselves to all types of survivor narratives and System criticism of the Medical Model that we might find at websites like MIA and Beyond Meds.

    If one is not continuously exposed to this form of education then they WILL NOT be able to help people very much, and most likely will end up harming them. AND each person doing therapeutic type work must make sure they are CONSTANTLY engaged in a form of self-interrogation regarding their own personal agenda and the actual nature of the inherent power differential in their therapeutic relationship.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kurt

    Thanks for writing here at MIA and participating in a difficult discussion.

    One important thing to point out in this discussion, is that in today’s world (when looking at power relationships), Psychiatry is the only other institution in our society that has as much power as the U.S. President and the Executive Branch of government.

    After just a 5 minute discussion with a “mental health” worker or family member, a psychiatrist can completely strip away a person’s Constitutional Right to freedom with a simple signature of a pen. With this signature any person DEEMED “a threat to themselves or others” can be forcibly incarcerated and drugged (some would say “mind raped”) in a psychiatric hospital.

    There is accumulating evidence that it is these kinds of experiences of trauma (the use of ‘FORCE”) that are a major contributing factor to the rise in suicide in this country.

    Kurt, I challenge you to read and contemplate the arguments made in the blog I wrote for MIA a few years ago titled: “May the ‘Force’ NEVER EVER Be With You: The Case for Abolition.” Here is the link: https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/10/may-force-never-ever-case-abolition/

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Matt

    I am still very surprised you still want to cosign MartinMc’s comment. I hope you read ALL the follow up comments beyond his original comment.

    I believe myself and a few others made a strong case that he was in essence putting forth his own version of a form of biological determinism that in the final analysis only reinforces aspects of Biological Psychiatry’s pseudo-science. This same view ultimately reinforces certain prejudices regarding common fears of the rise of the Women’s Liberation movement.

    Matt, you said: “…I did not agree with everything he said, but thought some of it was quite valuable. By assuming I agree with certain things he said (when you couldn’t know all that I actually agreed or disagreed with), you might be making a mistake.”

    I would say that in my own participation in commenting on blogs, I am VERY CAREFUL when agreeing with someone on a few points to distinguish that agreement from other parts of that person’s analysis that I find objectionable.

    The fact that you were NOT clear on exactly what you agreed with, AND DID NOT follow up your comment with any objections to other parts of his analysis, leaves you very open to fair criticism of you basically co-signing what MartinMc wrote here.

    And MartinMc was also presenting some major political themes that quite often dovetail with Right Wing Libertarianism in this country. I believe it is very important to criticize these political views because they are so utopian when it comes to understanding the true nature and role of capitalism in today’s world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thank you Steve, J, and others for your insightful critique of the shortcomings and problems with this blog.

    Kurt Michael, you said: ” Some teens have even accused my clinicians (many in their early 20’s) as being out of touch with teen culture, saying that as adults, we “don’t get it.” In fact, as an exemplar of a literal “piling on” to this so-called generation gap, my 24-year-old clinician was told that “24 is the new 40!”

    Have you ever considered the possibility that the huge “gap” that some of the teens are describing about your clinicians may have absolutely NOTHING to do with age. It may instead have EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE TYPE AND CONTENT OF THE EDUCATION THAT CURRENT STUDENTS ARE RECEIVING BEFORE THEY ENTER TODAY’S “MENTAL HEALTH” FIELD.

    Over the past 4 decades there has been a complete “take over” (in both education and practice) by the Biological Psychiatry “Disease”/Drug based Medical Model of so-called “treatment. The collusion, at the highest levels, between Big Pharma, the American Psychiatric Association (APA), and the leaders of academia, has led to a consolidated shift in the way psychological duress is understood in today’s world AND how caregivers are taught AND directed to provide support and care.

    Today’s students are thoroughly indoctrinated in a pseudo-scientific paradigm dictated by the outlook and practice of Biological Psychiatry, where the essential content is nothing more than a series of “genetic theories of original sin.”

    Students are directed AWAY from looking at what is wrong in our surrounding environment, and forced to focus on defective genes, brain “diseases,” and the “magic bullets” of mind altering psychiatric drugs that are alleged to correct mythical “chemical imbalances” in the brain.

    Even in those educational programs where students MIGHT be exposed to alternatives approaches (other then the dominant Medical Model) we cannot underestimate the overwhelming influence that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by Big Pharma and the APA in its massive PR campaign over the past 4 decades, has had on influencing the thinking of the American public.

    It is NOT A MYSTERY why young caregivers actively working in today’s “mental health” system are completely unable to effectively reach out and connect to teenagers who are only a few years different in age.

    Suicide is NOT a mystery, nor are the solutions to this crisis that difficult to understand. There must be major Revolutionary type institutional changes at all levels in our society. But the first thing that needs to happen is that We ALL need our brains “washed” thoroughly from the harmful AND deadly way of thinking and “treating” people promoted by Biological Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jill

    You said: “Addictive drugs capture the individual’s motivation system such that the behavior is compelled. The affective consequences of consuming the chemical are irrelevant. It’s not about seeking pleasure or seeking relief, its about having no choice.”

    This above statement is one sided and leads to an unscientific understanding of addiction that actually reinforces Biological Psychiatry’s and the medical establishment’s “disease” propaganda regarding the nature of addiction.

    In fact, it is this view which uses words like “capture” or “hijacking” the brain as one of the main arguments of those “mental health” opinion leaders who push the whole concept of addiction as a disease. They consistently call addiction a genetic based, chronic, and progressive brain “disease” which requires “treatment” and quite often, replacement drugs and/or psychiatric drugs to manage for one’s lifetime.

    Yes, on going heavy use of certain drugs can impair and diminish (while using) the frontal lobes and more rational thinking parts of the brain that clearly impair judgement. “Capture” and/or “hijack” are misleading concepts that are refuted by literally millions of examples of human experience where people have broken major addictions (most often) with no formal “treatment” of any kind.

    BTW, I’m not using AA or NA as the example for those people recovering without “treatment.” For the actual record of success for the 12 Step groups is quite low (about 10%) according to the Cochran Institute.

    The whole famous rat experiment cited above refutes your concept of “capture” mentioned above and its applied misleading beliefs in the direction of “disease” thinking. It also cuts against the whole concept of neuroplasticity which is one explanation for why people can recover from major addictions.

    Jill, I suggest you read Dr Carl Hart, neuroscientist, and Dr. Lance Dodes (The Sober Truth) to get a better scientific perspective on these issues so you are not unknowingly promoting “disease” based thinking and faulty science.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • MartinMc

    Your above analysis represents a clear example of putting BIOLOGY above the more dominant and principle influences of ENVIRONMENT as the determining factor when examining the evolution (with some periods of rapid revolutionary change) of human culture and human nature. You are making a different version of the very same errors as Biological Psychiatry.

    You have taken a “brief” snapshot of some of the more common ways men and women behave in today’s world in this historical era (or projected your own narrow personal experiences growing up) and, in an unscientific and mechanical way, projected that onto a very static and limited view of human nature. In the final analysis, this view only serves to reinforce the status quo and some of the worst stereotypes regarding what constitutes sexual identity and the social roles of men and women in our society.

    THE MOST IMPORTANT AND DOMINANT FACTOR in how human beings socially interact with one another within society is rooted in the fundamental way in which the necessities of life are produced, the ownership of those means of production, and the type of political organization that is developed to oversee production and manage social life within the broader society.

    Both human culture and its closely related construct called human nature are quite malleable when looking at the history of the human species.

    While one can’t discount that there are some biological (especially the levels of certain hormones) differences between men and women, these differences are not only secondary to the influences of the culture and society surrounding them, but that very culture itself can have a direct impact on a person’s biology, including levels of hormones etc. depending on what is happening in that environment.

    In today’s world most human beings live in large social groupings, including large urban centers. Production of the necessities of life on also done socially, most often in larger group settings called factories. So we live together socially and produce socially BUT the very means of production built and operated by a working class is OWNED and CONTROLLED by a SMALL CLASS of capitalists.

    In order to survive, those in the working class must SELL THEIR LABOR POWER to the highest bidding capitalist. This my friend is just a higher form of slavery – called WAGE SLAVERY.

    This same class dominates and controls the entire political system and we are duped into thinking we live in a democracy.

    It is this societal framework in which the social roles and so-called differences in human nature between men and women are fostered and developed. The role of women, as oppressed second class citizens, within this framework has been necessary and vital to the ruling classes to maintain their power and control throughout society, despite some limited changes in First World countries.

    MartinMc, you can put Maggie Thatcher or Hillary Rodham Clinton in major positions of power in a capitalist dominated political system and they will act (and have already acted) just like the men who preceded them. The internal logic of *capital* is to “expand or die.” In the final analysis they will end up doing things within a general framework of expanding and protecting the Imperialist empire. The fact that they have given birth to children or have higher levels of estrogen in their bodies will mean virtually NOTHING when it comes to their political decisions and actions as a government leader.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • MartinMc

    Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I want to be clear that I am not somehow labeling you as a bigot or a Right Wing fascist sympathizer.

    HOWEVER, your current analysis and previous comment was “cloaking” (and maybe you are not even aware of it) a very dangerous set of ideas that, in fact, mirrors in similar ways some of the main themes of the Right Wing Libertarians in this country.

    The fact that you have such a blase view of Trump also scares me, and tells me volumes about your political instincts AT THIS TIME. There are many people with far less knowledge and political sophistication as you that have an appropriately visceral negative reaction to Trump, especially women and minorities. And your above comment shows a complete failure to grasp the more subtle (and sophisticated) forms of sexism and racism in today’s academic world.

    So, no MartinMc, I am NOT somehow putting you in the camp of the people I would describe as the ENEMY. However, that being said, the views you are currently professing, if taken to their furthest extension, do end up in some scary places.

    My pointed use of sarcasm in my above comment is mainly to alert you and other readers the very dangerous extension of these set of ideas.

    MartinMc. you said: ” I wouldn’t say I am anti-capitalist as I believe that giving people the opportunity to bargain between themselves about what they are willing to offer each other for their efforts or products while having a limited governmental or judicial process to go to if an agreed deal or contract has not been fulfilled is an essential component as I don’t just trust the market enough to correct itself.”

    As to your description of modern day Capitalism, I don’t think I’ve read a more “benign” sounding description of today’s system of wage slavery that, not only fosters and maintains class oppression in this country, BUT operates the most DESTRUCTIVE form of Imperialist domination throughout the Globe.

    Don’t forget that the U.S. only makes up slightly less than 5% of the world’s population, yet it sucks up and controls vast percentages of the worlds natural resources AND holds a vast number of countries in a constant state of economic and political backwardness to serve its Imperialist needs and agenda. Do I need to bring up Imperialist wars, for one example, to make this point?

    AND look what havoc, crimes, and distortions the capitalist profit motive has wreaked on today’s system of medicine, the”mental health” empire, and its huge barriers to fostering legitimate independent science.

    As to your positive references to Carl Jung and his use of maternal and patriarchal archetypes, don’t forget that Jung had sexual relationships with several of his “patients.” What does that say about his judgement and views toward women?

    MartinMc, I still maintain that I want to be a “million miles” from several of the views you profess here, because all my political experience and understanding of history tells me EXACTLY where this type of viewpoint is headed.

    MartinMc, you said: “… your reply has given me a chance to try to prove to you that you do not need to stay away from my analyses and that I’m not as nasty and sneakily cunning as you seem to perceive me to be.”

    First off, I never used words such as “nasty” or “sneaky,” those are your words. And further, it is very unfortunate that you are seemingly NOT currently open to changing your thinking on these critical issues. What this comment tells me is that you currently have NO INTENTION of reevaluating your above comments or learning from my criticisms and analysis here, BUT you ONLY want to defend and restate and/or double down on these backward headed viewpoints.

    MartinMc, I hope you, and others who may hold similar views here at MIA, will seriously reevaluate where these ideas will take you and our entire society, if taken to their final extension.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • MartinMc and Matt

    Neither one of you did much with these comments to advance ANY confidence from MIA readers in your ability to advance the causes of social justice beyond perhaps a partial critique of what is wrong with today’s “mental health” system.

    First off, let me be clear where I am coming from, so there will be no attempts by MartinMc to smear me with some kind of liberal democratic brush.

    I am anti-capitalist and condemn both the Democratic and the Republican Party as being tools and instruments of the 1% constituting a ruling class that is an impediment to future of human progress on this planet. They have always been, and will continue to be, totally unable and unwilling to provide any thorough going advance of any forms of social justice for people in this country, and most definitely for people around the world, as they control the number one Imperialist power dominating the world stage.

    My views on MIA policy have been well stated several times in this blog and I will not repeat them again here.

    MartinMC’s critique of MIA staff members and the supposed source of their political decisions about blog policy is shear nonsense cloaked in a sophisticated attack on women’s liberation and other related struggles for social justice in the world.

    MartinMc’s says: “I believe that matriarchal control is beginning to become more prominent in Western societies…”

    Oh, so I guess you believe the struggle for women’s liberation may have gone a bit to far for your liking. And in particular, perhaps the role of women in leadership positions at MIA is the cause of the so-called stifling of the *freedom of speech* of mainly male bloggers in the comment section.

    MartinMC should I anticipate that you believe that perhaps the struggle against racism in America may have also gone too far for your liking, with their being perhaps too many minorities promoted into positions of power in this country. And therefore this has now become the source of some kind of “racist” backlash now oppressing white people.

    Have you somehow forgotten that the political system in this country just took a MAJOR leap in the direction of Fascism with the election of Trump. That every single struggle for human rights, from women’s control of their bodies, gay rights, advances against racial oppression, the struggle against psychiatric oppression, protection of the climate etc. are in serious jeopardy of being set back or wiped out completely.

    MartinMC you allegedly speak out strongly for *free speech* but what direction is the “freedom” moving in regards to the struggles for human rights that I mentioned above. AND please tell us exactly what is YOUR agenda on these vital struggles that you cloaked in a sophisticated rant against MIA moderating policy.

    MartinMC you said: “…where it highlights how Democrats are far more likely to be diagnosed with a ‘mental health condition’ than Republicans so while I know that there may be other better explanations from this I would guess that psychiatry, its affiliates and the pharmaceutical industry would only be delighted if more people became or voted Democrats…”

    Now MartinMC, in this comment you have totally exposed and embarrassed yourself, and once again revealed a not so hidden form and agenda of bias and discrimination against oppressed people in this society. Apparently you believe that people who get diagnosed with “mental illnesses” in this country are the same “numskulls” that fall for the liberal Democratic and/or other types of a Left political agendas.

    As has been proven here at MIA by its publication of legitimate science and correct (is it safe for me to use this word?) political analysis, poor people subjected to all aspects of poverty, racial minorities, women, gay people, transgender people etc. are ALL more likely to be diagnosed with a so-called “mental illness” and drugged in this country.

    The fact that more people from these particular groups vote Democratic proves nothing in this context except that, as expected, – environment trumps biology when it comes to understanding the kinds of social stressors that push human beings beyond their ability to cope. The fact that less Republicans get diagnosed has more to do with their *class* position in society than any other factor you are trying to imply here.

    So MartinMC, if you were trying to offer a well thought out political analysis for why the MIA moderating policy is wrong, you failed miserably. And as much as I agree with some of your initial concerns about the closing down of the comment section of some blogs, I DO NOT want to be within a million miles of the rest of your political analysis.

    And Matt, you have just embarrassed yourself as well, by saying: “The comments here from Martin are excellent.”

    Do you really want to cosign MartinMc’s above comment?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Emmeline

    Have you considered this. In the future, this policy may force people like myself to just go ahead and write an entire blog that is a devastating critique (within the appropriate standards of writing) of the prior (silent) author, as a follow up to a particular blog.

    I bet you might see that author suddenly appear in your comment section when her/his viewpoint/positions are totally deconstructed by other commenters and the new author, her/himself.

    As you know, I eventually did this once at your suggestion to deescalate a particularly hot comment section. Although the blog came out several months later and was also very hot in the comment section, the final result (after my actual testimony for the MA benzo bill) was a very rewarding reconciliation among almost everyone involved.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    I see no evidence that there is a lack of bloggers trying to be published at MIA. The blogs keep coming and coming, and many from first time writers. And sometimes I even lament that fact when my blogs so quickly get pushed down to the bottom of the front page and then off the screen.

    Let’s hope that MIA becomes so popular (with tons of good blogs submitted) and widely read that MIA staff can set the terms more decisively about required participation.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    Your posts are SO devilishly deconstructing of Biological Psychiatry in the most scientific and sarcastic way that it simply gives me such great joy to read them, and I laugh out loud all the way through most blogs.

    This is simply one of your very best, but, of course, I have said that to myself before. You are a vitally important treasure to the anti-Psychiatry movement that sparkles beyond the brilliance of true gold. Keep on keeping on!!!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob

    Thanks for this response to such an important and intense process that is occurring within this vital social justice resource that you were so instrumental in creating.

    I still strongly advocate for a policy that ALL people who blog here should be required to participate in some way or level in the discussion that follows their publication. Even if that participation (because of time constraints and other responsibilities) can only be one summarized response at the end of the discussion addressing some of the main themes etc.

    Don’t forget that all the authors publishing blogs here at MIA are getting the ENORMOUS PRIVILEGE to promote their ideas, their reputation, their books, and even their BRAND, if you will (some make a living off of their writings and business endeavors related to their writing interests), to a broad internet audience. MIA has grown in readership significantly over the last few years, so this is no small opportunity and privilege that authors are given.

    The least they (the authors) can do is make an effort to provide some give and take with the readership base of this blog. And Bob, I hope you are hearing how vitally important these comment sections have been, especially to survivors who read at MIA on a regular basis. Some people have stated that they learn more from the discussions than the actual blogs themselves.

    IF IF IF you decide to allow some authors to close discussions (and I hope you don’t), then I would hope you make sure you impress upon ALL authors that you would STRONGLY PREFER that they engage with the readership, and NOT allow these closed blogs to become even close to a “norm” at MIA.

    Recently, the two nutrition writers who promote their books and “brand” at MIA closed off such a discussion after a few people raised some legitimate questions. These questions were not raised (in my opinion) in any kind of a hostile way, but they were “pointed” probings of exactly what was being promoted in the writings. I felt this may have fueled the beginnings of a bad precedent or direction here at MIA.

    Is it not also the role of MIA moderators to “soothe” the egos of some authors and help clarify what readers are REALLY asking of the authors? So that they can see that they are not being “attacked” by these questions, and that further dialogue and clarification would only enhance our efforts to arrive at the truth of the matter being discussed, and actually advance EVERYONE’S goal of improving scholarship and knowledge.

    More food for thought – ONWARD!

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    Thanks for that thoughtful and personal response.

    I still believe that MIA must retain and nurture its solid survivor base with all its edginess and yes, anger at times, in order to continue its mission. In fact, I would say that in many ways this “voice of survivor” edginess actually attracts many professionals to come here and explore in a deep going way the actual effects that this system, and those of us that work in it, are having on the very people we are suppose to be serving.

    Some professional people may be hesitant to write or comment here, but I believe they DO VERY MUCH want to know what is truly on the minds and in the hearts of those they profess to serve. AND I believe those same professional people want very much to be accepted into this community by the most ardent and critical survivor activists.

    This whole process may take some time because the overwhelming majority of professionals do not yet truly understand the inherent nature of the power differential in their relationship with their client/patient relationship, or understand the terrible harm perpetrated by this System.

    Brett, I remember a previous period a few years ago when you stepped back form participating at MIA for the very same reasons. BUT you came back again to try and fit in and actively participate. I am confident that your heart is in the right place and you will, indeed, be back with us in due time for another try. Next time, don’t wait so long OR reconsider now, and push on through all your reservations and fears.

    There are many people here who want you to be participating in this community and witness the changes that you (and all of us) will go through in the coming period of intense struggle against the EVIL EMPIRE (I do not use this term lightly) of psychiatric oppression.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Who says he has to share my “goal of bringing down the system.” You are being just as subjective in your own impatience with this f#$king System as he is, only in a different and more “ultra left” way.

    Did you read Brett’s comment above? Did you you not pick up on his frustration trying to make change against all these overwhelming powerful forces out there? Did you you not pick up on his personal admission that he has difficulty with contentious discussions? We both have no idea of what personal experiences Brett has endured in his life that might make him more sensitive to this sort of dialogue.

    Sometimes it’s hard for me and many others that participate here to deal with certain comments and difficult exchanges. Some are more seasoned and experienced than others. I believe it is his frustration with the System and his personal difficulty with certain exchanges that led Brett to make what both you and I believe are bad proposals for how MIA’s blog dialogue should be operated. This does not make him some “enemy” that deliberately wants to take down MIA and destroy its vital core.

    MIA does NOT have a revolutionary agenda, nor should we expect it to have one. It is a “community” of people seeking the truth about what is going on with this oppressive (my description) “mental health” system and seeking solutions for those harmed by it.

    Oldhead, if you are really interested in changing this f#$king System you’re going to have to figure out how to communicate with people like Brett and James (the author of this blog) and others not at your level of critique or political experience, or you’ll end up in some corner somewhere hurling insults at people, and not advancing this cause much.

    Sometimes you act like you can’t discern the difference between your enemies and your potential friends in the Long March we are on in this movement. I stand with you in your overall anti-Psychiatry critique, but some of your methods of struggle need some adjustment, Comrade.

    I disagree with Brett on a few important issues, BUT he is still on OUR side of the barricades and we must work toward “uniting all who can be united” in this struggle to build a broad based movement. Oldhead, why aren’t you attempting to win over Brett to your perspective instead of assuming that he will hold onto, forever, what it is you think he needs to change???

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    Your record proves you have made great efforts to advance a more radical critique of Biological Psychiatry. I have read some of your articles in the past and found them to be skillfully written with important exposure of the entire “mental health” system. You have also made some very valuable contributions to some of the addiction discussions that have followed some of my blogs critiquing the “Disease” Model of addiction. You ARE a part of the MIA community and you BELONG here and I hope you decide to remain here.

    That being said, it does not mean that you and I (and the rest of this community) share EXACTLY the same assessment of the current objective reality facing us, necessarily agree on the best strategy to advance this cause, or share exactly the same ultimate goals of this movement. AND we don’t need to ALL be in exact agreement on these things to all work toward advancing this cause. NOR should we expect to ALL be on exactly the same page at this time.

    Your above comment actually reveals a great deal of the frustration and yes, anger, we all feel about why our movement against Biological Psychiatry is not at a more advanced stage. We have THE SCIENCE to refute them, a significant number of articulate and outspoken survivors, and a solid number of credentialed doctors, scientists, and other professionals, YET the “Cabaret” still goes on seemingly unabated. In fact, if anything, it is more accurate to say that their oppressive System is stronger than ever, and still getting stronger every day. How do we explain this?!

    You said in the above comment:
    “I do not know if the culture here is a barrier to more professionals engaging with MIA, but I think it is possible…. But I also think there are lots of other people like me, who support MIA’s mission but who are hesitant to engage with this community because of its culture. And also, perhaps, because they are more interested in discussing certain issues with their peers than with a general audience.”

    Brett, you are a firm believer in science and the scientific method. You, indeed, practice it in both your writings and in your professional work. Yet, in the above statement you used the phrases “I do not know,” once and “I think,” twice, and the phrase “perhaps because” once. And then you followed those phrases with a predetermined (possibly subjective) conclusion as to why MIA and our movement is not growing faster. And that conclusion was your proposed belief that it must be all the edgy and sometimes combative discourse that takes place in discussions that follow MIA blogs.

    Respectfully, Brett, you have seriously veered away from the scientific method here and perhaps imposed a conclusion (out of our universal feelings of frustration and anger with this f@#king System) that flows more from your own subjective discomfort with contentious debate, and yes, sometimes dialogue that comes across as personal and cutting. While I have somewhat steeled myself against over reacting to this, I can’t tell you how much sleep I’ve lost and emotional stress I’ve experienced when my blogs are up and the debate and discussion gets pretty hot.

    I’m not a survivor, so my words are especially scrutinized by many readers here. But I’m OK with that, because we have to endure these pressures if we truly want to change the world. And I also know many therapists who do harmful things in their work.

    The same sort of contradictions are present when white people are involved in Black Lives Matter or men are involved in struggles against women’s oppression. This System has placed enormous barriers of racism, sexism, classism and the endless other divisions created by this System, including between psych survivors and professionals working in an oppressive “mental health” system. We all have to work through this, and yes, suffer with some angst and anxiety when people disagree with us etc.

    I believe the future success of MIA and its mission must involve a foundation (including a growing number of developing leaders) of outspoken, and YES, edgy, articulate, and sometimes openly angry victims/survivors who educate us professionals about the true underbelly of this oppressive System. Those same survivors also need to be open to learning a few things from the scientists, professionals, and other intellectuals who have the skills to use science against our enemies who operate this gulag.

    MIA would not even exist without the original core of survivors who were the impetus and inspiration for this entire project, and have been the heart and soul of Robert Whitaker’s books. The future of this endeavor must, and will, involve a growing core of activist survivors, or it will fail and fade into obscurity.

    I believe the MAIN reason why it has been SO difficult to grow our movement is because we have underestimated exactly what we are up against. Biological Psychiatry, in collusion with Big Pharma, has literally spent several hundred BILLION dollars over the past 4 decades on the biggest PR campaign in history to perpetrate some of the most deadly myths in human history. This mythology is deeply imbedded throughout the entire population, both among those who are highly educated and those who are functionally illiterate.

    Let’s be clear, we are up against an empire here and Trump’s new appointee for “mental health” has already declared her desire to INCREASE the power of BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY in the coming period.

    Brett, don’t let these frustrations get the best of you and/or let the System turn us all inward fighting among ourselves, resorting to subjective type conclusions for why our movement is not growing more at this time. Try to remain as scientific in your personal efforts to dialogue at MIA as you are in your professional life.

    Let’s all take a deep breath, and then dig back into all the rich discussions here at MIA and struggle (including within ourselves) with searching for a deeper understanding of the truth and finding the ways to ultimately bring down this Beast of a f$%king System. Carry on.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sonja

    Great blog – and such a powerful story told with such deep insight based on “lived experience” with these dangerous and grossly over prescribed drugs.

    I had heard bits and pieces of your story in our prior conversations but had no concept of the depth of the living hell you experienced. You are one brave and resilient woman who is engaged in a very important battle against Big Pharma and Biological Psychiatry.

    Keep us posted on the the progress of this legislative effort; for I want to help in any way I can.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • To Brett, James, Emmeline and ALL

    I just completed a very brief look at the list of all the authors/bloggers here at Mad in America. I attempted to assess the number of professionals who have written several blogs AND actively participate in discussions.

    I believe that Brett, James, and some others here may be exaggerating or over estimating the nature of the problem where professionals working in the System are somehow “victimized” by excessive criticism or some type of perceived personal attacks, and thus, discouraged from further participation here. AND that somehow this requires a qualitative change in MIA policy leading to the closing down of some discussions under written blogs. Or the suggestion that there should somehow be a SEPARATE site for ONLY professionals to dialogue.

    Here is a partial (unscientific list) of professionals who write at MIA on several occasions who do JUST FINE with the comment section. It does not mean that some of their views are not criticized or challenged, but they handle this process quite well, knowing when to respond to certain negative critiques and also knowing how to shy away from dialogue that has reached an impasse: (and BTW, this is a list of professionals for whom I believe have not had any “lived experience” as a survivor, but of course, living in this world today does subject us all to multiple forms of trauma on many different levels, including those stories told to professionals by “clients”, “patients,” etc.)

    Carina Hakanson, PhD – Bonnie Burstow, PhD – Bruce Levine PhD – Kjetil Mellingen PhD -Peter Gotzche, MD – Rev. Dr. Steven Epperson – Jay Joseph, Psy.D – Johanna Ryan – Michael w. Corrigan, Ed.D – Philip Hickey, PhD – Richarad D. Lewis M.Ed., LMHC – Robert Berezin, MD – Sandra Steingard MD – Stuart Shipko, MD

    This list does NOT include professionals who also have “lived experience” which is a whole separate discussion in many ways. And I did not include some writers at MIA who write very few blogs or I am unaware of their personal history with the System.

    The few writers here at MIA who are having the most difficulty with this process should not “project” their personal assessment onto other professionals writing here by exaggerating the nature of this problem in such a way as to pressure MIA into making significant editorial changes.

    And as a last point, I would suggest that some of the professional bloggers who are having the most problems with this process go back and read the many blogs and comment sections of Dr. Sanda Steingard over the past several years.

    If you do, you will get first class lesson in how to stand your ground in the face of very harsh and emotional criticism, yet honor and respect, and YES attempt to understand where the writer is coming from in their traumatic experiences within the System. And she very astutely knows when certain dialogue has reached an impasse and, she artfully moves away from such exchanges before allowing such dissonance to devolve into harmful forms of communication. This does always make people happy when this cutoff happens, but it is a testament to her compassion and personal incite as a human being in a very controversial profession as a psychiatrist. It is also why she is highly respected by her patients, other critics of the current “mental health” system, and also respected by those who even believe that Psychiatry should ultimately be abolished as a medical specialty.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    As a professional AND an anti-Psychiatry activist who is determined to be a part of a movement WITH psychiatric survivors to end ALL forms of psychiatric abuse, your suggestions here, if implemented, would be a serious step backward for this entire movement.

    And this perspective, if widely adopted, would only further polarize and exacerbate already existing contradictions among survivors and people working in the system. And don’t forget there are a number of survivors out there also now working inside the system. How would you classify them in this whole dynamic?

    You said: “I suspect there are many people in my profession who would welcome a MIA-style resource for news, blogs, and discussion about issues related to MIA’s mission, where they could discuss and debate important issues among fellow professionals who generally share their values without having to spend their time arguing with those who want to abolish all mental health professions, regard science as worthless, and so on.”

    Your comment about having to waste time “…arguing with those [survivors] who want to abolish all mental health professions, regard science as worthless, and so on…” is a gross exaggeration of how these views get expressed here. A very tiny minority here at MIA express views that “all mental health” professionals should be abolished.” (BTW don’t you indeed desire a world where therapists and other “mental health” professionals are no longer necessary?) And the vast majority (I would guess 90% or more) express deep appreciation and value for ALL the science that refutes the oppressive paradigm promoted by Biological Psychiatry.

    You said: “I hope that someday the culture here will allow me to confidently recommend that kindred spirits in my profession become actively involved. MIA has a long way to go before that can happen.”

    Brett, there are many professionals who blog and comment here who do just fine. Please don’t project your current dissonance onto other professionals participating here, and then make a principle about dividing people off from one another. If you’ve read some of my blogs and commentary in discussions on benzos you will see that I’ve encountered some serious turbulence at times. But I have learned a great deal by persevering with an open mind through these difficult and turbulent waters. And I believe some survivors have learned from me in the course of these debates and discussions.

    Yes, MIA has a long way to go, as WE all do, INCLUDING YOU, before we can end psychiatric oppression.
    DARE TO STRUGGLE, DARE TO WIN!!!

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Emmeline

    You said:”I hear you on professionals not always being willing to make the effort to see things from the perspective of people with lived experience. But the reverse is also true — people making no attempt to see the good in what a professional is doing, instead bending over backwards to find fault and assume the worst, sometimes missing the point of a blog entirely or reacting to things the writer didn’t even say.”

    I would say in this situation the onus/responsibility is mainly on the professional to step back and not overreact, or take things in a personal way and respond on that basis. This is true even when we are, in fact, personally attacked by a commenter and/or survivor.

    I am not suggesting this is easy to do, nor am I suggesting that this comment section should be allowed to become a free for all battle of competing comments without any rules of decorum.

    As a professional, we should assume form the git go that many people have been harmed by this oppressive “mental health” system and that many therapists have engaged in the negative aspects of the inherent power differential (therapist/client relationship) and taken in some of the worst influences of the Biological Psychiatry paradigm – labeling, “disease/drug based model etc.

    I read MIA carefully for 6 months before I dared to comment and/or write blogs here. Some might say I shouldn’t had to do such intense preparation before participating. But others might say it was a smart and necessary process of preparation.

    I guess you might be critical of how I participated in this particular discussion. I believe I have given the author credit for the important points he has raised, but also tried to understand where all the objections and criticisms have come from as well.

    Emmeline, if you are critical of my participation in this comment section I hope you find a way to engage me on where you believe I was off the mark. And that does not mean it needs to happen now in the comment section.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Stephen

    Interesting comment. And I find as I get older (69 an 1/2) and closer to the end of my life, the less willing I can tolerate oppression or ideas that in some way may unknowingly reinforce oppression. And also the older I get the bolder I become in strongly putting out my views and not fearing the response and/or sugar coating my views to avoid upsetting people.

    I still realize I must be careful and respectful how I go about this, but there definitely are changes in how we dialogue on controversial issues as we get older. At least that is true for me, especially over the past two years.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • James

    I actually agree with the essential point you have made (in the above blog) about the importance of searching for (and helping others search for ) a true understanding of reality as it truly exists in the the objective world – independent of any one persons subjective interpretation of that reality. Not being in touch with this objective reality can be a serious problem for individual members of society and our society as a whole.

    Where I think people picked up on some issues with your blog is on the question of how do we go about living with (and working with) people who have a different or distorted view of that reality. I think this is where some people may have picked up on some rigidity or paternalism etc.

    I saw this blog as an opportunity to go back into some of your inconsistent moral and scientific beliefs (as expressed in prior blogs where you defended Catholic doctrine on very controversial issues) which are quite contradictory at times. Since you very often insist on the importance of science and acknowledging the true nature of objective reality (as in this blog) I am totally confounded by your moral and political inconsistencies.

    And James since you are such a gifted writer and seeker of the truth, I believe you underestimate the impact of your words and moral stances in other contexts, especially when it comes to defending Catholic doctrine and how that might influence other Catholics or would be Catholics.

    You said in your earlier comment that you advocate for reform in the Catholic church, yet some of your writings in Catholic publications such as here (http://www.aleteia.org/en/scienvironment/article/10-ways-that-science-is-proving-the-church-is-right-and-the-cultures-wrong-5881921179484160) were using a very limited version of scientific understanding to justify a very backward and harmful social agenda.

    If you were really advocating for reform in the Catholic church why would you not use the same standard and method that allows you to criticize Biological Psychiatry and their whole System (in such a deep going way) but yet not take those same types of risks in challenging the Catholic hierarchy and their harmful doctrine when it comes to women and gay people etc.?

    You could potentially be a powerful force for change within this institution (Catholic church) yet you seem to spend more energy convincing others (with extreme forms of mental gymnastics) to go along with and accept this doctrine. I am totally perplexed and confounded by this moral inconsistency, especially since I do respect many of your other writings.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • James

    I find it necessary to repeat something I’ve said to you in prior discussions over the years: I respect your writing here at MIA. You have published many excellent blogs and critiques of what is wrong with Biological Psychiatry and their whole “mental health” system. I have learned from your writings and hope you publish more in the future. At the same time there are some issues we have major differences on when it comes to inconsistency in moral beliefs, political agendas, and religious doctrine.

    Somewhere in the comment section under your prior blog a few years ago titled “Addressing the Mental Health Crisis: What Really Matters,” you made the following statement: “”But the ONLY thing I care about is understanding what truly is, no matter how inconvenient, unpopular, antiquated, or mundane they appear. Period.”

    James, I want to hold you to this comment. I hope this statement would also apply to any and all critical appraisals of your words and written blogs, even when the first tendency (that all of us tend to have) when we are criticized; that is to be defensive and sometimes deflect the discussion to other issues.

    In this case you are now bringing up the fact that some people writing here at MIA cannot always handle heated debate of their ideas (and are thinking about not writing anymore blogs here), including those times when people may express their angst against professionals (and their being part of the System) and the Catholic religion etc. And yes, at times that includes dialogue that crosses the line into angry outbursts and what may appear to be personal attacks.

    I would say that if we truly are interested in learning from this process (that includes all of us who author blogs here and believe we have something to teach others) then we must be able to weather the many different forms of debate and political struggle that occurs at MIA. Despite a minority of examples where these discussions digress into bad forms of communications, OVERALL there is very positive dialogue going on here at MIA, and there are enormous opportunities to learn about the world and ourselves.

    James, why not step back for a moment and consider that some people have picked up on a particular tone or rigidity in how you presented your ideas here. You just might learn something if you can get beyond the defensiveness and search for the underlying meaning of what people are saying. This includes even those times when they might not be expressed in the best way.

    I am the one who brought up the Catholic issue and I will explain in a subsequent comment why I chose to bring that into this particular discussion.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • This article has many good aspects to it in regards to bringing forward the role of trauma in addictions. Unfortunately it still promotes the disease concept of addiction and has not escaped the influences of Biological Psychiatry.

    The following quote reveals how it promotes the same old “disease” based thinking:

    “So, how long does it take before they’re cured? “How long should you take insulin if you have diabetes?” responds Sumrok, making the point that this is a chronic disease, that people should be in treatment for as long as it is necessary, and that some may relapse.”

    And at the end of the article it promotes the new female president elect of the American Psychiatric Association; as if putting a woman in this position is somehow going to change the reactionary and harmful nature of this organization.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I would say that even the term “consensus reality” has some problems when you examine history. What was the “consensus reality” regarding Black people in this country during the period of slavery and after (even to a lesser degree today)? The “consensus” among the vast majority of people would have contained the most blatant forms of racist prejudice, including all forms of racial inferiority and stereotypes.

    And what was the “consensus reality” in Nazi Germany in regards to the Jews, gay people, communists, and those labeled “mentally ill?”

    There is “consensus reality” and then there is the actual true reality independent of any one particular human being attempting to comprehend and understand it. Some people may have a closer approximation of exactly what that reality is at any given time.

    Yes, it is important for all of us to seek out and attempt to understand “reality” as it truly exists at the moment and within our surrounding world. And not knowing this reality, or somehow having a distorted perception of it can cause problems for any given individual and the society at large.

    So the author of this blog does have an important point he is making. But based on his prior blogs and his vehemently uncritical and total acceptance of Catholic doctrine, he leaves himself open to enormous contradictions and hypocrisy in his thinking and overall ethical approach to morality.

    In prior blogs he has strongly defended the Catholic church in its stand against gay people and homosexuality. This stance by has (in reality, “consensus” and otherwise) caused enormous harm and death (through murder and suicide) to perhaps hundreds of thousands of people. And given the Aids crisis in Africa, the Catholic church’s position on birth control has also directly led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings. These are irrefutable facts by any standard measure of reality.

    While this author has written some good blogs and is willing to question today’s “mental health” system, his critical thinking skills seem to reach a sudden halt when it comes to evaluating the true role of organized religion in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • For Biological Psychiatry this “Choosing Wisely” campaign is nothing more than a lot of ass covering and a “pretend” form of “Informed Consent.” Prescriptions of all their toxic substances (psych drugs) only keep going up every year.

    Given how pervasive and powerful Psychiatry is as an institution of social control, all this will not change unless and until, Psychiatry is ultimately abolished as a legitimate form of medicine. And that cannot happen unless and until, there are revolutionary changes in our economic and political System.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said:”Dialectical materialism works fine within the sphere of political struggle, which is part of the highly material focus we currently share. But there is ample scientific consensus that the very existence of material substance, along with the perceived limitations of time and space, are essentially illusions, or limitations of our senses.”

    I am surprised that you would promote this form of “relativism”, that is, a kind of approach that says, “well we can’t really know all these things for SURE when it comes to spiritualism and materialist philosophy etc. and the political reality that flows from all these real life problems we all face.”

    Don’t you you see how this conveniently fits into this giant hodge podge of beliefs in the so-called “market place of ideas,” where nothing is really knowable, so we can’t really be sure of anything etc. or take direct political action in the real world because “who the f#%k really knows what is true” etc.

    This fits very well into people just living their life as individuals and “doing their own thing” because “reality is only in your own mind” etc.

    This kind of “relativism” is VERY USEFUL to the ruling classes (and those that want to preserve the status quo) because people are often paralyzed by uncertainty and the related forms of mystical thinking.

    There is a reality out there and there are knowable truths AND WE MUST ACT DECISIVELY ON THAT KNOWLEDGE TO CHANGE THE WORLD FOR THE BETTER. Yes, there will always be things we don’t understand, and the universe is always in a state of constant change but this SHOULD NOT prevent us from taking decisive action in the real world.

    Dialectical materialism, as a scientific methodology for understanding our world (and the universe), is NOT limiting in this sense but actually embraces the concepts of unknowable truths and a constantly changing reality.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hey Frank

    Every time they build a new telescope it shatters all previous conceptions, and they end up conceding the fact “well, I guess we were wrong, the universe goes out much farther than we used to think.” This itself will be an infinite process as human knowledge and our capacity to explore the universe continues to expand.

    And here is another aspect of infinity to explore. There is both “inner” and “outer” (for the sake of better terminology) forms of infinity. For as human beings explore smaller and smaller objects by searching for the so-called smallest particles inside known objects, suppose we conceive of this as also another endless search where smaller and smaller particles will be discovered in an “infinite” space going in the so-called other direction, if you will. And there is a dialectical relationship between both forms or types of infinity.

    Infinity is almost an impossible concept for humans to understand because of the finite nature of our thinking minds. But nevertheless, we can explore these questions and they have important significance in understanding both philosophy and physics and ultimately, political solutions to human problems. Food for thought.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JanCarol

    I respect your beliefs and I did not mean to offend you with my use of the word “confusion.”

    Part of my strong anti-religious beliefs come from my years of political activism and study of history as to how religion has been used as the ‘opiate of the masses” to suppress and undermine people’s ability and willingness to fight the “powers that be.” I still believe it overall serves this function in today’s world. And yes, there are major differences between organized religion and any one particular person’s spiritual belief system.

    That being said, I am also aware that some very religious people have also been great fighters historically against against an oppressive status quo. And I am sure this will also be true in the coming battles.

    It is still very important to have these kinds of back and forth discussions, in a respectful way, because the better we all understand how the world works the better we will be prepared to change it.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Seth

    You say: ” To deny a priori the existence of “God” shows either one is unfamiliar with modern non-fundamentalist theology and non-dogmatic mysticism or one has embraced a 19th century Newtonian materialist view of “science.””

    You are promoting a philosophically “idealist” presentation of reality similar to the old “I think therefore I am” approach to understanding the world. As opposed to a more philosophical “materialist” approach which says “I am therefore I think.” The latter presupposes the existence of an objective reality independent of and outside the self.

    Seth, the view you are promoting actually places MAJOR LIMITATIONS on the true nature of the “universe” by implying that it is “finite” and predetermined by an a priori existence of a supernatural “God,” which you would probably say has existed “infinitely.” This unscientific outlook actually stands (in the long run) as a major obstacle to human progress.

    What makes far greater sense and can be backed up by true science, is that “the universe” itself is infinite – it has always been there and will infinitely exist, that is, the law of matter in motion is infinite. Nothing was “created” by a “God” for it has always existed.

    “God” is actually finite in the sense that it is a conceptual creation of human beings to somehow explain the unexplainable in a confusing and often traumatic reality. The more human beings grow to understand how the world works and create a reality with less oppression and trauma, such concepts as “God” and/or religion (and other superstitions) will no longer be necessary for the human race.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JanCarol

    Thank you for sharing such a powerful story with so much emotional depth and meaning. Even though your descriptions of the “darkness” were hard to fathom, your sense of hope and rediscovery of self were truly very inspiring.

    I will definitely pass this comment on to a very close friend who is currently in the throws of a very difficult stage (serious insomnia and unrelenting anxiety in the early part of the day) of withdrawal from several decades of being on a psych drug cocktail, which includes lithium.

    I can definitely see how your post psych drug experiences could have a “spiritual”component to them perhaps in a similar way I described “spiritual” in my above comment, which I will repeat here:

    “While I am a hardcore atheist, I still believe in a certain concept of “spirituality,” IF that is extended to mean a form of human CONNECTIVENESS (emphasis added) that elicits a strong emotional sense of bonding and/or an uplifting sense of being part of, and connected, to certain social movements (where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) attempting to change the world for the better. I certainly felt these feelings in the movements of the 1960’s and beyond, and in today’s movement against psychiatric oppression and other environmental and anti-capiatalist struggles. These types of feelings (loosely called “spiritual” in the broadest sense) are based on tangible human interactions in the REAL world, not superstition.”

    In your case just reconnecting to the experience of real feelings again, both to nature and other human beings (we are by nature social beings), must be a complete revelation and profoundly emotional in a deep going way.

    But I do try to make a distinction between those particular feelings and the religious belief in a supernatural “god,” which I believe is in another metaphysical category. Sometimes these two categories of feelings are confused by people and lumped together. I don’t think this blog at MIA was able to draw those necessary distinctions, which was one of its major shortcomings, in addition to trying to separate out these questions from the overall harm perpetuated by the massive amount of psych drugging going on in society.

    Again, thanks for telling your story.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead and Vortex

    I agree with Frank’s above comment.

    Oldhead you said: ““Science” cannot prove or disprove spirituality, they are two different realms. One is subjective and experiential, the other objective and abstract.”

    This statement makes no logically sense. All experience is based on human interaction with the material world; which is the originating source of all ideas and thoughts. There can be no thinking or thought processes without there first being human interaction with the objective world that exists outside of oneself.

    As to science (or those believing in science) proving spirituality in terms of the existence of supernatural beings, this cannot be done, nor is it our responsibility to try.

    If someone says there is a pink elephant in the room but no one can see it with the naked eye or find any material evidence of its existence, it is NOT my responsibility to somehow prove it’s not really there. It is their “goddamn” responsibility to prove it is there, otherwise please stop insisting it is there, AND that others should accept on faith its existence.

    How many similar sorts of superstitions and beliefs based on shear faith or trust in those proclaiming to know the truth, have ended in such great harm and destruction to the human race?

    And Oldhead, science can’t be both objective and “abstract” at the same time as you implied in your above statement. This does not make any sense in this context.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Matt

    You have NOTHING to be defensive about regarding your issues/questions regarding religion and and spirituality.

    I should start out by saying that I am NOT an agnostic, but rather a militant atheist. I believe that not only is there no such thing as a “God,” but that religion and the spread of various similar forms of superstition is a harmful thing for the human race as a whole. I don’t deny that religion may have a short term consoling affect for some people in grief etc., but overall belief in these unscientific myths holds back the progress of humanity.

    While I am a hardcore atheist, I still believe in a certain concept of “spirituality,” IF that is extended to mean a form of human connectiveness that elicits a strong emotional sense of bonding and/or an uplifting sense of being part of, and connected, to certain social movements (where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts) attempting to change the world for the better. I certainly felt these feelings in the movements of the 1960’s and beyond, and in today’s movement against psychiatric oppression and other environmental and anti-capiatalist struggles. These types of feelings (loosely called “spiritual” in the broadest sense) are based on tangible human interactions in the REAL world, not superstition.

    Matt, I’d like to challenge your comment that said: “… since I believe that these beliefs are basically denials of the fact that we are as far as we know alone in the universe (without a known God),…”

    We are NOT alone! There are several billion human beings on this planet we can unite with to transform this world into a more peaceful and humane place to live. People, who can and do provide us with tangible evidence (on a daily basis) of love, affection, and support. Since there is no God, and nobody can prove its existence, it is beyond me how people can claim that somehow we (atheists or agnostics) are in anyway missing out on some mystical connection that has no basis in proven reality.

    Matt, you also said: “… they are often adaptive delusions, since one feels safer and less afraid of death and meaninglessness by believing in God or being spiritual.”

    I don’t believe for a minute that this is necessarily true or more “adaptive” in a positive way. Many very religious people are very hypocritical in their social relationships and have serious problems in making genuine human connections. Many also have great fear of death. Is it possible in some situations that their religiosity stands as an obstacle for them being able to make those human connections or overcome their fears.

    Matt, you said: “…After writing this, I realize that it is depressing not to be spiritual; however, I do not view deluding oneself with unevidenced beliefs as something to be proud of and thus it is difficult for me to be spiritual, even though I love nature and other people.”

    Again, nothing to be defensive about here. For me it is NOT depressing, but rather LIBERATING to not be burdened with the all the religious superstition and the false concepts of “sin” and “evil” etc. that come with most religions. It is precisely your love of “nature” and “other people” that makes you a “spiritual” person in a sort of philosophically “materialist” way (if I might frame it that way).

    Matt, I believe your instincts about these questions are far more on target than those who will immediately accept religious dogma with no verifiable proof in the real world. And I must point out here, that I mean no disrespect to people who still hold on to religious beliefs. I think that religious belief will be around a long time on this planet and I plan to work as hard as I can alongside of many religious people as we attempt to change the world. I just want atheism to command the same level of respect among the broad masses, so that atheistic people DO NOT have to be defensive or somehow feel “deprived” or lacking in some mystical human quality.

    As to the content of this particular blog, I have very mixed feelings. The following quote rubs me the wrong way:

    “To be clear, I’m not trying to debate whether medications work or not, or if they are an appropriate first-line treatment for emotional distress. The aim is to look at the particular ways that psychiatric medications work which create the conditions for perceived interactions with spirituality.”

    While I am very much in favor of most scientific endeavors (even some of the more obscure investigations), I don’t know how someone can remain so impartial to the huge elephant in the living room of any discussions regarding psychiatric DRUGS in today’s world. First off, to use the term “medications” is to concede to several decades (where billions have been spent on marketing) of propaganda by Big Pharma to convince people that their mind altering substances are somehow “medications,” instead of the mind altering drugs that they are in reality. This is NO SMALL point in semantics, but a direct struggle against very oppressive language.

    And most importantly, given that overall their psychiatric drugs are causing FAR MORE HARM THAN GOOD in the world, that is, literally destroying millions of human lives, who the hell cares their psychological effect on spirituality WITHOUT AT THE SAME TIME LINKING THIS TO THEIR OPPRESSIVE ROLE IN OUR SOCIETY? Or how can we EVER separate their social and political role in society from their effect on spirituality?

    These drugs are, in their essence, mind altering substances, that impair overall brain functioning. So using common logic, I would expect them to interfere with rational cognitive functioning which would, in most cases, enhance one’s tendency to accept all forms of superstitious thinking, which includes religious spirituality. What more do we need to know on this artificially separated out subject of investigation.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Robert

    I think it would be helpful if you came down a few notches from your high (no pun intended) horse and listen to what some of the commenters are trying to say here.

    I have stated in prior comments that I believe you have made several good postings at MIA. That being said, you still, in the final analysis, defend Psychiatry as if it is a legitimate part of medicine – to be only “reformed” and not “abolished” as history will clearly demand in the near future.

    Perhaps some of your dogmatic responses to the possibility that psychedelic drugs might be helpful to some people under certain (safe and highly controlled) conditions, is reflective of some your difficulty in being thoroughly dialectical materialist in your assessment of the scientific fraud that supports the existence of Psychiatry as a legitimate part of medicine.

    To clarify my beliefs on this question: I am NOT advocating or supporting the use of these drugs by Psychiatry. I have zero trust in this institution (as a whole) having the legal right to prescribe ANY mind altering substance to any human being, or other animal, for that matter.

    There have been prior blogs on the MIA website written by major critics of Biological Psychiatry who have found the use of certain psychedelic drugs, in carefully controlled and supportive environments, to help with reprocessing past traumatic events that WERE NOT accessible using other more commonly accepted therapeutic methods.

    Robert, are you aware of some of the more recent scientific evidence that indicates that memory is a very malleable phenomena in the brain that is subject to transformation and adjustment each time a person is able to access it through many different types of internal and external measures that overcome prior blockages?

    I believe there MAY BE emerging scientific evidence that certain psychedelic drugs might help people access certain traumatic memories in a way that helps them reprocess these past events in such a way (not previously possible) that allows them to move on from the negative power of said events. Perhaps there is also some anecdotal evidence from other people over the years who have also used these drugs recreationally that experienced some other similarly positive effects.

    Robert, do you deny that this evidence mentioned above might someday show that these drugs could prove to be helpful under certain circumstances?

    Yes, I also believe (as you do) that for many people, over the past several decades, psychedelic drugs could have caused great harm and contributed to dangerous, or unhelpful, forms of psychosis like effects. But we must be THOROUGHLY SCIENTIFIC when examining these questions, NOT mechanical and dogmatic in our outlook. And this is coming from someone who has written many blogs on the harm done by all categories of psychiatric drugs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Pitolay2002

    I like some of what you say here but the following part of your comment is WAY OFF:

    You said: ” Methadone has been used to treat opiate addiction for a long time and is currently considered the gold standard for the treatment of opiate dependence…”

    The “gold standard” comment only makes sense if you are talking about the profits of Big Pharma and the ability of the ruling classes to control certain sections of the population. The current uses of methadone are very dangerous and overall very harmful to those caught up in the clutches of the “orange handcuffs.” I suggest you read my past blog at MIA:

    https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/04/manufacture-maintenance-oppression-profitable-business/

    And as to its dangers: less than 5% of opiate prescriptions involve methadone (a synthetic opiate), yet it is implicated in one third of all the deaths associated with opiate drugs.

    This profit based System we live under has NO solution to drug overdose crisis and as long as there is the existence of poverty and various forms of class oppression, it will NEVER be solved.

    And I will add, that I agree with many of the criticisms of this blog’s dogmatism when it comes to the possible benefits of psychedelic drugs, especially as it pertains to the reprocessing of past trauma experiences.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Truth

    You said: “The drug and ECT damages to my brain mean no amount of love can help me to recover.”

    I don’t know how you define “recovery,” but I just want you to know that over the past several years reading all your comments, especially your unrelenting exposures of ECT and on going challenges to Dr. Healy, you do a masterful job of exposing some of Biological Psychiatry’s biggest crimes. Carry on; we need you!!!

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • FeelinDiscouraged

    You raise a good point about “spiritual abuse” being a form of trauma.

    I am aware of this problem and have frequently used the phrase “genetic theories of original sin” (which was originally coined by Ashley Montagu to describe biological determinism) to describe Biological Psychiatry’s “Disease”/Drug Based based theories and practice.

    The whole concept of “sin” can be very harmful to people, especially because it is based on myth and things that don’t exist, and is used punitively to make people feel bad at a core level.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • And BTW, I would NEVER defend OR promote the kind of “treatment” offered in all the current inpatient Psych Hospitals for WHATEVER problem people end up there for.

    Julie, I appreciate your detailed critical comments and personal accounts of the horrible “treatment “you have been subjected to over the years.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Julie and others

    Even though I have a history of being a therapist, I NEVER mentioned “therapy” and NEVER mentioned “bad parenting,”(even though I do believe this can be a factor in some cases). I DID mention the possibility of a trauma history AND other types of conflict with one’s environment as being causal factors in what gets labeled as “eating disorders.”

    All this is predicated on the fact that we live in a very stressful, unjust, and often trauma filled world. Do you deny THIS reality and the fact that it is THE PRIMARY source of those human problems that get labeled as “mental illness?” As opposed to the “genetic theories of original sin” and other “diseased based” theories promoted by Biological Psychiatry, that represents pseudo-science at its best.

    And yes, I believe that what gets labeled as “eating disorders” (that happens FAR MORE often in women) is very much connected to women’s overall oppression within our society, especially the high rates of sexual abuse and the treating of women’s bodies as sexual objects. Do you deny this reality?

    I DO NOT say this is the ONLY factor, but certainly is a SIGNIFICANTLY IMPORTANT factor in these problems. And I believe most research would back this up.

    These problems are certainly NOT based in nutritional deficiencies as a primary causal factor as the author has promoted. Why are people NOT CONCERNED about this problematic form of REDUCTIONISM?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Julie and others

    Do you (and others) not see the major problems with the OVERSIMPLIFIED and REDUCTIONIST views being promoted by this author?

    While I’m sure there are many origins for problems that get labeled as “eating disorders,” they DO NOT mainly DERIVE from “nutritional intake” issues. I believe it is correct to say that their origin derives more from ONE’S CONFLICT WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENT. This includes various forms of trauma experiences (or perceived trauma), especially in the early years of growing up.

    This author is using a lot of anti-Biological Psychiatry language, but then is using a REDUCTIONIST approach to say that bad nutrition is both the CAUSE and the SOLUTION to everything that gets labeled as a “mental health” issue.

    This author’s approach IS NOT helping our cause. She may be well intentioned in her work, but we must be equally as critical of this particular form of REDUCTIONISM as we are of mainstream Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ok, so let me get this straight; “eating disorders” are caused by “leaky gut” and solved by changing ones diet and/or nutritional intake. How dumb of me to think these were complicated questions.

    So, no need to examine any possible trauma history which could have directly affected a person’s body image or related desire to “disappear” (and not be noticed) or become less of a sexual object within a society with high rates of sexual abuse and objectification of the female body etc. OR explore other unresolved psychological stressors that could manifest themselves in power and control issues with food etc. etc.

    You are presenting a potentially dangerous oversimplification of these kind of problems and other forms of extreme psychological distress. This becomes almost the flip side of the same REDUCTIONIST type of coin promoted by Biological Psychiatry, even though it is dressed up in some anti-Psychiatry type language.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Elizabeth

    You leave us with the impression that if we just had a “Revolution in Nutritional Health” all the “symptoms” that get labeled as “mental illness” would disappear in the world. This view is steering people AWAY from a more centrally important and vital political and social agenda.

    Extreme psychological distress PRIMARILY arises out of one’s conflict with a stressful, unjust, and often traumatic environment that frequently pushes the human species beyond its ability to adequately cope and adjust to these circumstances.

    I would strongly contend that these enormous stressors in society mainly have their origins in a class based and profit based economic and political system. Psychiatry has clearly evolved into a major institution of social control within this political framework.

    While nutritional health has some SECONDARY importance in the overall scheme of things, it is primarily a POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REVOLUTION that must take place to create the material conditions in the world to eliminate those conditions that give rise to “extreme forms of psychological distress” that get mislabeled as “mental illness.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Elizabeth

    I agree with many of comments here challenging some of your central beliefs.

    In the recent blog on nutrition and “mental health” by Bonnie Kaplan and Julia Rucklidge, I raised the following question and comment – to which they never answered:

    “You said: “…our research has helped put on the map the idea that mental health problems CAN be addressed through nutrition, offering an alternative to our current approaches.”

    “What exactly is meant by this statement, especially your emphasis on the word “CAN”? I am a firm believer in science and the scientific method. I support your efforts at researching the value of nutrition as a valuable “aid” to recovery, but I believe it can be harmful and even dangerous to exaggerate its meaning if not backed up by proven science.

    “In my comment above I stated the following:
    “And more importantly, RECOVERY from these negative and harmful experiences in life must ultimately be UNDERSTOOD AND ADDRESSED in each person”s own experience and timetable for recovery. This may, or may not, require therapy, but most certainly will require A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT to nurture one’s recovery.”

    “It is here where good nutrition and gut health may be an important ENHANCEMENT or ADDITIONAL SUPPORT for such recovery by aiding a more suitable INTERNAL BODY ENVIRONMENT for such recovery, but NOT the PRINCIPLE MEANS for such recovery to take place.”

    “A person in recovery will STILL have to address the original traumas that began their conflict with their environment AND the subsequent traumas that took place when they encountered AN OPPRESSIVE “MENTAL HEALTH” SYSTEM that added to, and reinforced, earlier traumas. There can be no SUBSTITUTE OR SHORTCUT for doing this work.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • John

    Thanks for that source reference on Harvey Jenkins the founder of RC counseling. This article raises some serious questions about this type of therapy and those that practice it. This whole topic requires much more investigation before people should be promoting these programs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Peter

    In all my comments over the past few years I have always bent over backwards to find something positive in an author’s blog before raising some of my concerns or criticisms. I am always respectful and try to never allow myself to resort to cheap or snide comments or personal attacks. I try very hard to raise the level of political and moral discourse in every discussion I participate in.

    I stand by my sharp and unrelenting responses to this author. Do you not see his overriding arrogance in his belief that he is truly “enlightening” his students with this pathetic message covering up for and apologizing for such an oppressive “mental health” system? And especially his insulting belief that he has been so “successful” as psychiatrist over the past 30 years.

    Please read his past blogs (and the comment sections) and then decide what he has learned over the past 2 years. If anything his MONSTROUS HUBRIS has only become more inflated, and thus more dangerous.

    When there is this level of arrogance and hubris by defenders and apologists of the system, there is no room for trying to find “common ground.” This kind of trash must be exposed for what it is, without any efforts to sugar coat the reality of what is going on.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • “Emotional Skills and Strategies for Aspiring Mental Health Workers”

    Dr. Ragins, you have provided your students with a sure fire recipe for being “Good Germans” in the face of major human rights violations being carried out every day in this country.

    If any would be students entering today’s “mental health” system possess even a minor amount of critical thinking skills and a developed moral conscience, they will inevitably face the following political and moral conundrums on a daily basis:

    1) A massive amount of cognitive and moral dissonance regarding the daily harm perpetrated against millions who enter today’s Disease/Drug based Medical Model.
    2) A daily unrelenting discomfort and internal knot in their stomachs related to what they see being done to people and their particular role in carrying out possibly more harm, all in the name of “treatment.”
    3) Lost sleep thinking about the added traumas from the System that those unfortunate souls entering “treatment” have to suffer, and what could, and should be done to stop it.
    4) Moral dissonance on a daily basis about WHEN and HOW to “Blow the Whistle” on the crimes that they witness. And then heightened anxiety and paranoia when they do “Blow the Whistle” anticipating the System coming down on them and most likely losing their job and source of income.

    I am not suggesting that new students entering today’s System cannot help some people, or even make a difference by challenging the “Beast” from within. HOWEVER, this is a very difficult road to follow, filled with many obstacles and pitfalls. Dr. Ragins has offered his students nothing but better ways to “go along to get along;” that is, with a full set of moral blinders covering both their eyes and their heart.

    Dr. Ragins, why didn’t you tell your students to read Mad in America; an absolutely essential tool for anyone taking on today’s “mental health” system? Perhaps if they did read MIA on a regular basis they would have exposed your bogus defense of Biological Psychiatry.

    Two years ago in one of your blogs, Dr. Ragins, you boasted about yourself as being a “good psychopharmacologist.” Please tell us what you have learned over the past few years about which particular drug cocktails are “most effective” for your patients. And also tell us how many people you have “saved” by forcing them against their will into some kind of so-called “treatment.” Please, please tell us all your success stories; maybe we could all learn something from you. You obviously have decided that you cannot learn anything from us.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thank you for this thoughtful blog.

    As i stated in my very first blog at MIA:

    “Similarly, extreme states of psychological distress can lead to altered states of consciousness that are mislabeled as a “mental illness” and a “disease,” but could instead be better looked at as a creative and necessary coping mechanism dealing with an experienced and/or perceived hostile and threatening environment. This coping mechanism, as with addiction, may also prevent more extreme reactive behaviors or provide an escape or temporary relief from intense physical or emotional pain….”

    “Here is the rub. A problem often arises with both substance use leading to addiction and also with extreme states of psychological distress, when these behaviors and related thought patterns are sustained for extended periods of time, the formerly helpful coping mechanisms can gradually, or even suddenly, turn into their opposite and now become primarily self-destructive, self-defeating, and socially unacceptable*. This is especially true when the short term benefits of the behavior and resulting thought patterns start to shift and begin to cause far more immediate, as well as long term negative consequences for the individual and the people around them. Some people may now actually get stuck in this new state of being and be unable to find their way out by themselves. This is the point when we might say that these once helpful coping mechanisms have now seemingly become “stuck in the on position.” ”

    I would add the point that all of these “extreme states” have there own internal logic to them based on each person’s individual conflict with their environment. And the more conscious a person can become of this internal logic (within a safe and supportive environment) the better able they will be at resolving or adapting to this conflict; thereby ending or significantly reducing any self-defeating, self-destructive, or socially unacceptable behaviors or thought processes.

    Psychiatry and their entire Disease/Drug based/Medical Model of “mental illness” must not only be vigorously opposed, but ultimately abolished as a legitimate part of medicine.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thank you Bob for this important update on the state of “treatment” in Norway.

    This update does point out some minor cracks in the current oppressive “mental heath” system in Norway and throughout the world. Your painstaking efforts, together with other reformers, has helped create the basis for some change. We should not underestimate this development, nor should we overstate how far it takes us on the Long March toward ending all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    What this article points out is that Norway is quite unique in that it is both the origin of Open Dialogue and other important reformist efforts, BUT also at the same time has some of THE MOST Draconian laws in the world regarding the use of forced drugging and forced incarceration in Psych hospitals.

    This combination of extremes in Norway reflects a coming Civil War over these seriously divergent approaches.

    Today, Psychiatry is an extremely powerful institution in Norway and throughout the world. It performs a very important function of social control against the interests of those fighting for radical change. It will not allow its power to be diminished, even slightly, without a major fight.

    There already is significant push back in Norway on the part of Psychiatry against these particular (relatively minor) reforms. This push back will certainly intensify as things develop. Psychiatry is hoping for, and will seize upon with a vengeance , the first instance of violence or suicide in these small programs, and will attempt to crush any further reforms. We must not underestimate what we are up against here.

    I agree with those who say there can be no “Revolution in Psychiatry;” there can only be attempts at reform. Given the oppressive power that Psychiatry wields in today’s world, and the fact that it is an illegitimate branch of medicine, I believe there can only be (and must be) a Revolution AGAINST Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Bonnie

    You said: “…our research has helped put on the map the idea that mental health problems CAN be addressed through nutrition, offering an alternative to our current approaches.”

    What exactly is meant by this statement, especially your emphasis on the word “CAN”? I am a firm believer in science and the scientific method. I support your efforts at researching the value of nutrition as a valuable “aid” to recovery, but I believe it can be harmful and even dangerous to exaggerate its meaning if not backed up by proven science.

    In my comment above I stated the following:
    “And more importantly, RECOVERY from these negative and harmful experiences in life must ultimately be UNDERSTOOD AND ADDRESSED in each person”s own experience and timetable for recovery. This may, or may not, require therapy, but most certainly will require A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT to nurture one’s recovery.

    It is here where good nutrition and gut health may be an important ENHANCEMENT or ADDITIONAL SUPPORT for such recovery by aiding a more suitable INTERNAL BODY ENVIRONMENT for such recovery, but NOT the PRINCIPLE MEANS for such recovery to take place.

    A person in recovery will STILL have to address the original traumas that began their conflict with their environment AND the subsequent traumas that took place when they encountered AN OPPRESSIVE “MENTAL HEALTH” SYSTEM that added to, and reinforced, earlier traumas. There can be no SUBSTITUTE OR SHORTCUT for doing this work.”

    Could you please respond to my point about what will most often be the “principle means” for recovery from “mental health” issues? And could you justify not using quotations when using the term “mental health?”

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Understanding nutrition and gut health are very important areas to explore when looking at ways to ENHANCE recovery from severe forms of psychological distress.

    HOWEVER, we must be VERY CAREFUL to not fall into the trap of exaggerating its importance or reinforcing Biological Psychiatry’s own dangerous and faulty theories of “broken brain” chemistry.

    First off, it is doubtful that bad nutrition can be the ultimate cause of severe psychological distress OR its cure. If we promote such a view we are dangerously close to promoting the “chemical imbalance” theories of “mental illness” by the current oppressive “mental health” system. That is, a view that good nutrition will somehow “correct bad brain chemistry etc” or create a better environment for brain chemistry “to normalize…” etc. If we are not careful we are in danger of promoting false hope for people (and their families) who are seeking recovery for themselves or their loved ones.

    While there may be some more rare examples of people having severe distress related reactions to toxic chemicals and substances within our environment, it is more OVERWHELMINGLY THE CASE that what gets described as “mental illnesses” represents human conflict with a stressful and trauma filled (and/or perceived) environment.

    And more importantly, RECOVERY from these negative and harmful experiences in life must ultimately be UNDERSTOOD AND ADDRESSED in each person”s own experience and timetable for recovery. This may, or may not, require therapy, but most certainly will require A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT to nurture one’s recovery.

    It is here where good nutrition and gut health may be an important ENHANCEMENT or ADDITIONAL SUPPORT for such recovery by aiding a more suitable INTERNAL BODY ENVIRONMENT for such recovery, but NOT the PRINCIPLE MEANS for such recovery to take place.

    A person in recovery will STILL have to address the original traumas that began their conflict with their environment AND the subsequent traumas that took place when they encountered AN OPPRESSIVE “MENTAL HEALTH” SYSTEM that added to, and reinforced, earlier traumas. There can be no SUBSTITUTE OR SHORTCUT for doing this work.

    I am raising the above points, NOT as a criticism of the authors but only to help clarify important topics of discussion when dealing with nutrition and gut health.

    The authors made the following VERY IMPORTANT statement :
    ” we are living in an era in which drug companies have so totally corrupted scientists and clinicians that our audience members cannot believe that there is any other way to ‘do business’ in the scientific world.”

    This is oh so true! And unless and until we ELIMINATE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, the profit motive from all scientific, medical, and social supportive endeavors in our society, we WILL NOT be able to fully understand extreme forms of psychological distress in our society OR provide the means and overall supports necessary to promote ultimate recovery options.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Humanbeing

    People must, and can only do, what they are capable of doing in this movement. There should be no quota system or unreasonable expectations.

    I love your participation here at MIA and always learn something from your comments.

    There is a role for every single person who yearns to be free from the oppressive yoke of Psychiatry and the overall System that sustains and requires its presence on this earth.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Kjetel

    Some very interesting and creative suggestions.

    An IMPORTANT EDITORIAL CORRECTION: the U.S. Imperialist war in Vietnam killed over 2 million Indochinese people, unless one does not view these people as somehow human. We do NOT want to appeal to any form of American/First World chauvinism when creating our various forms of protest.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    Your essay is a powerful piece to a developing manifesto for a much needed anti-psychiatry movement.

    You have brilliantly covered almost every necessary issue for such a manifesto, and made important suggestions for the way forward. And BTW, all of your proceeding writings on Psychiatry have made a major contribution to getting us to this current historical moment where we are on the cusp of launching a world changing anti-psychiatry movement.

    One important addition that needs to be made to your essay is in the realm of politics and economics. While you correctly pointed out the following political observation:

    “Psychiatry provides a “valuable” service to governments by promoting the false message that legitimate and appropriate responses to discriminatory and exploitative policies are symptoms of illness….
    Psychiatry is the cornerstone of a multi-billion dollar world-wide drug cartel.”

    We need to take this analysis a few steps further. Psychiatry has increasing become (over the past 4 decades) a required institution of social control for the preservation and growth of modern Capitalism. Their “genetic theories of original sin” are essential to shifting focus away from the inherent inequalities and daily traumas within a class based/profit system.

    Psychiatric labels along with their anesthetizing drugs, have been increasingly directed towards some of the more volatile sections of our society who are most likely to become the future agents of radical political change.

    And Big Pharma may have evolved into (with their enormous rates of profit growth) an industrial cartel TOO BIG TO FAIL, as U.S Imperialism competes with other growing Imperialist powers.

    And additionally, some of the inherent flaws in the way science is conducted, and the overall corruption of most scientific endeavors (especially psychiatric drug development), is intimately connected to the guiding principles of the profit motive infiltrating and harming every facet of our existence.

    Just as the key leaders within the environmental movement have linked the future of our planet to the need for more fundamental (systemic) political and economic changes in the world, the anti-psychiatry movement must also do the same.

    I am NOT suggesting that an anti-capitalist position has to be a necessary point of agreement (or basis of unity) to be in anti-psychiatry movement. I am only suggesting that it is necessary (when and where possible) to draw the real world connections between modern Psychiatry and modern Capitalism. To not do so would be to hide part of the reality we face in the world today as we fight all forms of human right violations, and it would also avoid discussing necessary strategic issues about exactly what it will take to end ALL forms of psychiatric abuse and oppression in the world.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Tina

    I have great appreciation and admiration for the work you do in the international/legal arena as well as, your struggle against all remaining vestiges of Patriarchy in our society. This includes within those movements claiming to be advocating for Revolutionary transformations in our society.

    When looking at the history of the Supreme Court in this country, their interpretation of the Constitution and Law (in general) has NEVER had some kind of inherent permanent essence divorced from the actual nature of the class struggle going on in this country at any particular time. They would have us believe that Supreme Court decisions are somehow PURE and unrelated to the political climate of the times.

    When looking at the history of racial politics in the U.S., the Supreme Court held onto the LEGAL interpretation/belief that Blacks were three fifths of a human being until this so-called accepted LEGAL belief had become totally UNTENABLE with the class struggle going on in the country as a whole.

    In this case it was Northern industrial capitalists in major conflict with Southern plantation owners holding onto a now archaic labor intensive slave system of production. This combined with a growing Abolitionist Movement (leading to international embarrassment and pressure) that all culminated in a major Civil War that led to a very bloody resolution of these contradictions.

    In the case of Psychiatry, with their power and legal rights to circumvent basic Constitutional freedoms (with forced drugging and incarceration in psych wards) that actually matches the same power as the Executive branch of the Presidency, how will this all actually be changed WITHOUT a corresponding level of mass class struggle that matches what took place place (for example) in the Civil War era?

    In others words, don’t we need a very powerful political movement in this country (including possibly another Civil War) in order to create favorable material conditions for such a dramatic shift in the Legal realm of government as it pertains to the power of modern Psychiatry?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BetterLife

    Thank you for that story of medical/psychiatric oppression that is SO common these days.

    The dangers of anti-hypertensive drugs are under appreciated.

    AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, the rise in fractures and falls in the elderly parallels the rise in BENZODIAZEPINE PRESCRIPTIONS that have dramatically risen (especially targeting women) over the past 2 decades.

    In fact, THERE IS NO OPIATE DRUG OVERDOSE CRISIS in this country, in reality
    there is A POLY-DRUG OVERDOSE CRISIS, where BENZODIAZEPINES more often play THE DECISIVE ROLE in the deadly drug cocktails that kill so many people.

    And Psychiatry, Big Pharma, and the FDA are guilty of the worst kind of medical negligence and manslaughter numbering in the hundreds of thousands. All of which is fueled by an underlying drive for profits and power that is inherent within a Capitalist system.

    None of this will end through a struggle for reforms. True reform (or more accurately labeled as TRANSFORMATION) can only come about through a struggle for Revolution – that ultimately means moving beyond a profit based Capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Good points.

    While the high profit margins of the pharmaceutical industry is of a secondary nature when analyzing the necessity of the institution of Psychiatry for the survival (through social control) and growth of Capitalism, we should not minimize its significance either.

    The high profit margins of Big Pharma over the past 3 decades, especially the marketing and sales of psych drug in particular, have made this industry vitally important to the future preservation and growth of capitalism. Big Pharma may have become TOO BIG TO FAIL in the increasingly competitive world markets among other Imperialist powers.

    Also, we should not minimize the role of Big Pharma (and their drive to maximize profits) in the almost total control and manipulation of ALL SCIENTIFIC (pseudo-scientific would be more accurate) research promoting and justifying the use of harmful psychiatric drugs. I would argue that there cannot (and will not ) be the development of safe and more effective science in medicine (and no, Psychiatry is NOT medicine) until we move beyond a profit based economic and political system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Susan

    Thank you for this very important and powerful blog about this new book focused on a Marxist analysis of “mental illness.”

    This is an important book to discuss, and the critical issues you raise in your book review were very insightful regarding both the strengths AND weaknesses of this particular Marxist analysis.

    First off, it is absolutely necessary to start from a class analysis when viewing the history and nature of modern Psychiatry and it related oppressive “mental health” system. This book appears to accurately portray how Capitalism has had an increasing need for an institution like Psychiatry, and all their “genetic theories of original sin” – to shift focus away from a “diseased” society to “diseased” individual members within the society. This has become a useful and necessary means to maintain control in an increasingly more volatile world.

    I have pointed out many times at MIA that Psychiatry (and the entire “mental health system) has increasingly targeted (with labels and mind numbing drugs) those sectors of society who have consistently been historically the most active creative agents of change – this includes, minorities, women, prisoners, and other non-conforming sectors within our society. This has especially been the case in a post 1960’s world political landscape.

    The political and economic collusion between Psychiatry (APA) and Big Pharma since the 70’s contains many important lessons about how Capitalism currently attempts to maintain control of the masses, and how CRITICALLY IMPORTANT it is for all those who dream of a Revolutionary transformation of society to understand and oppose these developments. Unfortunately today, many on the Left do not understand these developments and the importance of working in this political arena.

    Susan, I am so glad to you pointed out how the author tended to dismiss or deny the critical role of the working class/proletariat AND its allies in bringing about the end of Capitalism and all forms of class oppression. And yes, there has been a dangerous and incorrect *religiosity* type legacy within Marxist theory to somehow view Revolution as “inevitable” WITHOUT the true makers of history *the masses* being the creative agents of change through CONSCIOUS and STRATEGIC activity in the material world.

    For all those people who believe that Socialist and Communist theory has remained stagnant and become obsolete over the past 4 decades, this is NOT TRUE. There have been some Communist theorists such as Bob Avakian, who have attempted to synthesized a new theoretical and strategic approach to Socialist/Communist Revolution. Check out the following link: http://revcom.us/avakian/science/ba-the-new-communism-en.html#availablebox

    Susan you stated: “…PSYCHIATRY CANNOT BE ABOLISHED WITHOUT ABOLISHING THE SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES IT”

    This is a powerful statement that is SO TRUE. And I would add that all forms of abuse that exist within today’s “mental health” system will not end until we move beyond a profit based system. This System (both Capitalism and its related “mental health” system) cannot be remodeled OR reformed; it must be completely dismantled.

    With the election of a Fascist Trump regime in the U.S., we all have important moral and political responsibilities to oppose these development, and also some favorable conditions to raise people’s consciousness about ALL forms of oppression and ways to seek an end to this Madness.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I am not attributing this to Trump. The conditions in the U.S. to suspend the Constitution have existed for many decades for both Psychiatry and the Executive Branch.

    I do believe that the current election of Trump represents a serious leap in the direction of Fascism in the U.S. I believe this increases the likely hood of even more future examples of totalitarian forms of oppression throughout many institutions in this country.

    I believe that Psychiatry will only GAIN in power under a Trump administration, and that Psychiatry will be used as an even greater weapon against the masses in the coming period.

    We must unite all who can be united to drive the Trump regime out of power. Of course, our work will not end with such a campaign, but such a movement would create more favorable conditions to reach even greater goals in our efforts to end all forms of inequality and oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Daniel

    Great blog and exposure of the totalitarian nature of Psychiatry in this country.

    Psychiatry has exactly the same authority as the executive branch of government in the U.S. That is, the ability to suspend and circumvent the Constitution by taking away a person’s fundamental rights in a so-called free society. A Fascist President like Trump can suspend the Constitution in order to deal with so-called terrorist threats (real or made up) – think this can’t or won’t happen – THINK AGAIN!

    And a psychiatrist can simply sign a piece of paper after a 5 minute conversation with a cop or a “mental health” worker and anyone’s basic Constitutional rights can be removed in a heartbeat. You can then be sent to a psychiatric hospital (prison!) and drugged into oblivion and only possibly receive some type of court hearing days later. And in such a court hearing the power differential is stacked way in the favor of Psychiatry.

    Check out this article at Refusefascism.org and you will read a very similar story about the role of cops and threats of Psychiatry being used to oppress those resisting this System and Trump’s election: https://refusefascism.org/2017/01/17/brutal-arrest-outrageous-charges-nypd-assaults-refuse-fascism-activist/

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    WOW! What a powerful letter that is eloquently brimming over with an appropriate level of moral outrage and resistance against all the backward and harmful trends within your profession and also extending out to the broader world surrounding us.

    I have consistently (in my blogs and comments at MIA) been challenging doctors and others, working within the ‘System’ and their professions, to take risks and find ways to challenge “business as usual” within an oppressive status quo. This is a powerful example of how various professionals can find creative ways to do this.

    Sandra, you have found a unique and important way to express your own moral outrage, and also challenge others at the same time to raise their heads and look around at the dangerous scientific and political trends manifesting themselves around us. I salute your courageous efforts here and challenge other professional to follow in your wake.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Interesting blog worthy of more in depth investigation.

    The author, Niall McLaren’s descriptive identification at the end of the blog states the following:

    ” Jock McLaren is an Australian psychiatrist who worked 25yrs in the remote north of the country. He occupies himself delving into the philosophical basis of psychiatry, only to find there isn’t one. This has not helped his popularity with his colleagues, now well into negative territory.”

    I disagree with this description. There is a philosophical basis for all theories and practices in the real world. In this case modern Psychiatry has a philosophical basis rooted in “Idealism” and “Mechanical (as opposed to ‘Dialectical”) Materialism and Reductionism.”

    And for those not familiar with philosophical terminology, these are philosophical theories and approaches that are not provable in the material world and totally abstracted from a true scientific methodology.

    This is not meant to be a criticism of Niall McLaren, but only a philosophical critique of the description written on this website.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Perhaps we should phrase it this way:

    We need to pay attention to the “MAIN EFFECTS” of psychiatric drugs (not medications) which are overwhelming NEGATIVE and HARMFUL to people tasking the drugs as prescribed.

    The few examples of people reporting positive benefits from psychiatric drugs are either due to the “placebo effect” or examples of rare and unusual “SIDE EFFECTS”.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Robert

    Thank you for responding to this difficult issue.

    I am an admirer and supporter of the work you do. I also admire the fact that you speak out about what is wrong with Psychiatry and with today’s “mental health” system. You sound like a very caring and compassionate therapist. If I needed such help I might be very inclined to seek you out.

    You wrote the following:
    “I do my best to speak out. I’m clear about the state of psychiatry in today’s world. My identity is not political. I am a practitioner and this is what I value.”

    I believe you greatly underestimate the power of your words and actions when it comes to defending the future existence of Psychiatry as a medical specialty.

    Whether or not you like to identify as “political” your implicit defense of Psychiatry as a medical entity is most certainly a clear political statement (especially to those open minded people questioning the status quo) that has broad implications and specific EFFECTS in the real world. It might even preclude some people from believing it is necessary to look much deeper into the serous problems facing us in regards to the current crisis in “mental health” throughout the world. Knowing the true nature of Psychiatry in today’s world is a big part of knowing what must be changed etc.

    I believe it is our moral responsibility, in the face of the horrors that are spewed out daily with massive psych drugging, Electro-shock, forced hospitalizations etc., to do as much as we can to stop it all from happening and create more favorable conditions for future systemic changes in the world.

    If politically aware and conscious psychiatrists are not resigning from their profession as a more advanced MORAL and POLITICAL stance, then there could be some other justifiable reasons to hold on to the MD moniker/credential while still exposing the faulty science that props up its existence.

    For example, 1) radical doctors could be very helpful in providing medically necessary backup support for newly developed alternative respite programs for people experiencing psychosis etc. 2) Or use their medical credentials to provide (and scientifically study) much needed safe withdrawal programs and/or protocols for the millions of people trying get off these toxic psych drugs. 3) And lastly (but not less important) some doctors might keep their credentials to gain access to all the organizations and medical forums and meetings where they could continuously raise hell and disrupt “business as usual” by condemning all forms of psychiatric abuse and those people, especially the top leaders of Biological Psychiatry and Big Pharma, who are responsible for all the high crimes of medical negligence.

    Other than what I just stated, I can’t conceive of any justification for defending and holding on to a psychiatrist/MD credential given what it represents in today’s world. And to do so helps perpetuate (in certain ways) the myth of “mental illness” and all the horrible forms of “treatment” that go with it.

    Of course there are PhD doctors of psychology who provide therapy of various quality levels, and this represents a completely different category for which I am not presently raising any major critical questions at the same level.

    Robert, it sounds like you are very satisfied and proud of the work you do as a therapist; I get that. But please don’t underestimate the effect of your LACK of decisive action when it comes to challenging the very essence of the psychiatric profession when it comes to the legitimacy of calling it “medicine” or a legitimate medical specialty.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • drt

    I have been reading your comments for a couple of years now. I always feel your passion and learn something from the experience you share . And thanks for the positive feedback.

    BTW, I just went to a forum discussion in my town last night on the opiate epidemic. There were some nurses and doctors there as well as other citizens. I focused my comments (and I said a lot as you might imagine) on the benzodiazepine crisis raging in this country, including its connection to the opiate crisis. People were very open to these comments, but there is so much ignorance out there. We have Mount Everest to climb when you look at all the billions spent by Big Pharma and the APA to brainwash people about brain “diseases” and the so-called curative powers and safety of their drugs.

    We have much work to do.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Robert

    Thank you very much. You have just provided a very educational exposure of how screwed up and oppressive our current healthcare system is, and how intimately it is connected to the inherent whims (inner logic) of the role of “capital” within a profit based capitalist system.

    This healthcare crisis will only worsen in the coming years for exactly the reasons you have outlined. This will not (and cannot) get fixed WITHOUT major systemic changes that move us out of, and beyond, a capitalist based profit system.

    The same could be said for saving the planet from environmental destruction and overturning and dismantling the oppressive nature of our so-called “mental health” system.

    In all of these current oppressive institutions (Psychiatry, Big Pharma, and the Energy Industrial Complex etc.) profit and power rule the roost and guide their every move and decision. Until the masses of people seize control of these institutions, and the overall reigns of government, and install a more EQUALITARIAN NONPROFIT BASED ECONOMIC SYSTEM, all these problems we face will only get worse.

    And finally, Psychiatry has now become a very useful way to control some of the more volatile sections of the masses – those who are most likely to become radical political activists and threaten the status quo. They will either drug you or incarcerate you (in their jails euphemistically called “hospitals”) and/or do both.

    I am now of the belief that Psychiatry (and their paradigm of so-called “treatment”) will not, and cannot, be put into a museum where they belong with other historically oppressive institutions, unless and until we end capitalism.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Robert

    Your call for “A New Paradigm for Psychiatry” provides absolutely NO justification for the continuation of Psychiatry as a medical specialty in today’s world.

    Your theory of “the play of consciousness in the theater of the brain” has great merit as one way to explain severe psychological distress. I have no doubt you are a very good therapist who has helped many people overcome enormous problems coping with a very unjust world.

    But where is your scientific rationale for keeping Psychiatry as a medical specialty when the essence of what you do in the real word is “therapy,” and also the construction of well thought out therapeutic theories for how best to work with people in distress?

    Since you agree that there are no brain “diseases” and the Medical Model is absolutely wrong when looking at ways of analyzing and providing support for people in distress, why hold on to the credential of Psychiatry/MD? Doesn’t the very existence of the MD moniker mislead people as to what you do and perpetuate the belief that these are “medical” problems that you are addressing in therapy?

    Yes, while Biological Psychiatry is the worst of Psychiatry on steroids, our Grandmother’s Psychiatry several decades ago was also quite oppressive when we look at the existence of lobotomies, Electro-shock, and other oppressive forms of “treatment” that people were subjected to. You even agree that psychoanalysis, which was more prevalent among psychiatrists in this period, also had its serious problems.

    One of best ways to proceed in a current movement to end ALL forms of psychiatric abuse is for activist doctors to declare Psychiatry THE SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL FRAUD that it TRULY IS in the real world.

    Robert, you could play a much more powerful role in this movement if you, as a psychiatrist with the MD moniker, would renounce the complete legitimacy of your profession as a medical specialty and sacrifice all the power and financial benefits that go with it.

    This would make a very important statement to the world that could potentially change many people’s thinking on the true nature and oppressive role of Psychiatry. And actually, this act of courage and defiance would provide a much STRONGER AND POWERFUL BASIS to promote your highly creative and useful theories of providing supportive therapy for those experiencing extremes forms of psychological distress.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Noel

    Great blog and great questions posed. Most of the answers are all there if only there weren’t the impediments of profit (and a profit based capitalist system) and power standing in the way.

    Another reason for the connection of religion to psychosis (besides ignorance in the face of unexplained chaos and unbearable trauma experiences that lead people to seek “out of this world” answers and solutions) is the acute perception of a struggle between “good and evil.” Here is where the theories of “original sin” (both the religious and the pseudo-scientific) take over and influence people in a very negative direction.

    People end up believing they are very bad or even evil at their core especially if very horrible things like childhood sexual abuse occur etc. Then, of course, Biological Psychiatry swoops in and tells people they have defected genes and are permanently “diseased.”

    Some people experiencing deep psychosis related to trauma experiences will at some point believe or claim they are “Jesus Christ.” Think about it for a moment, if you have been heavily influenced by religious myth, you might end drawing the following conclusion:

    “I must be Jesus Christ (or his or her equivalent) because how else can one explain a human being somehow being allowed to endure SO MUCH pain and suffering as I have endured. I must be “God’s” sacrifice for all the sins of others, and I must have a religious purpose that flows out of these horrible experiences.”

    That false conclusion flowing out of a psychosis ,BTW, is a million times less harmful and dangerous than the myths (and daily practice) promoted by the institutions of Psychiatry and Big Pharma running today’s “mental health” system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Important topic to expose.

    But I have a SERIOUS problem with the title of this article and I think the MIA editorial staff should consider making an immediate change.

    “Benzodiazepines Continue to be Prescribed Without Psychotherapy to Older Adults”

    The implication from this title is that things would be OK or better if therapy was somehow included with the benzos. In fact, is this not the standard status quo approach promoted by the Biological Psychiatry paradigm of so-called “treatment.” That is, that psych drugs COMBINED with therapy is the so-called “best practice” approach to providing care to those people in some sort of psychological distress.

    Of course, in reality the mention of therapy is just some sort of inconsequential “lip service,” when the reality is that Psych drugs represent the new “STANDARD OF CARE” in community mental health and throughout organized medicine.

    If benzos are given to people, either young OR old, for longer than two weeks (counting time for a safe withdrawal) EVEN with the greatest therapist or therapeutic program, they will most certainly end up with some serious drug related iatrogenic damage or possible death, PERIOD – END OF STORY!!!

    Medical crimes and other forms of malpractice are being committed on a daily basis, especially with the elderly, but broadly throughout our society. With almost a hundred million benzo prescriptions every year in this country, most being long term, we have a crisis of epic proportions.

    And don’t forget that at least 30 percent of all opiate overdose fatalities involve the use of benzos, where benzos may actually be the key component of the particular drug cocktail that leads to death. I believe this figure could possibly be closer to 50 percent given that about 60 percent of all opiate drug users (both legal and illegal) use benzos on a regular basis.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • We have lost a great fighter for truth in science and for more humane care of those suffering from extreme psychological distress.

    As some one who is anti-psychiatry, I clearly recognize the important contribution Mickey Nardo has made toward ending all forms of psychiatric abuse and holding those accountable for the corrupted science that has harmed so many people.

    Thank you Sandra for writing such an eloquent tribute to this man. You have truly honored his humanity and his historical legacy. This was so much more meaningful than the more obtuse writing of David Healy.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    I appreciate your willingness to wade into this extremely important and contentious issue of the use of ‘force.’

    It sounds like these “reformers” are still very much stuck within a paradigm of overall psychiatric oppression and defending Psychiatry as necessary institution within our society. I would guess that in the end they would still be so-called “reluctant” users of force and somehow justify its use in so-called “extreme” circumstances.

    I would urge you to read my blog “May the ‘Force’ NEVER EVER Be With You: The Case for Abolition” https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/10/may-force-never-ever-case-abolition/
    Here I make a strong case for “abolition” (from every possible angle) with no room for ANY exceptions. What follows is some concluding paragraphs from that blog:

    “So all of these arguments regarding the use of ‘force’ in the mental health system boil down to the following points:

    1) ‘Force’ causes FAR more harm than good.
    2) ‘Force’ violates every precept of human rights in a so-called free society.
    3)‘Force’ inevitably leads to more sustained psychiatric drugging and its related iatrogenic damage to the mind and body.
    4)‘Force’ leads to greater forms of social control using threats of future incarceration (in psych wards or jails) and coercive forms of monitoring within the community at large; this includes various levels of coercive psychiatric drugging.
    5)We have no way of proving where the use of ‘force’ will ever lead to positive outcomes, or where its lack of use has led to an increase in negative outcomes.
    6)We know for sure that force has caused great harm to some people, and ultimately fatal or permanent harm for far too many of its victims.”

    “A principled and uncompromising stand for the abolition of all ‘force’ in today’s “mental health” system creates the most favorable conditions to challenge and educate people about the true nature of psychiatric oppression. It shines a spot light on everything that is wrong with the “mental health” system and the unjust and abusive power that Psychiatry wields in today’s world. Such a stand unites with the highest aspirations of those people desiring true liberation and freedom from all human rights violations and forms of oppression.”

    “To all those survivors of Biological Psychiatry and those at risk of falling into its clutches, AND to all those working inside the Beast yearning for radical change, MAY THE ‘FORCE’ NEVER EVER BE WITH YOU!”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Great blog.

    You have taken a very principled position at great expense to your ability to work in your chosen field. It may not be immediately apparent now, but this kind of activism will cause people to question and reevaluate the role of Biological Psychiatry in every facet of the “mental health” industry.

    Let the whistle keep blowing!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Matt and Sandra

    Sandra, I appreciate your blog and the issues you are willing to critically explore, including your own biases and the related moral issues regarding the role of psychiatry.

    When you say: “…to all who merit the diagnosis of schizophrenia…”

    I believe you are still perpetuating the worst of Psychiatry’s harm through it’s use of oppressive labels and the resulting horrible treatment that flows from their use. By not challenging the very existence of this particular label (among many that fill the DSM Bible), especially by using quotations, are you not succumbing to the very historical biases you are now questioning?

    Matt, I agree with all of your above points but would add this MOST IMPORTANT point to the list. The “bio-genetic focus” you refer to has an especially important role within an oppressive status quo (a profit based Capitalist/Imperialist society) of shifting the focus AWAY from people examining what is inherently wrong with the political and economic structures within our society. Instead it shifts the focus to people blaming society’s harms on “genetic theories of original sin” or so-called inherent flaws in human nature. How convenient his becomes for the ruling classes to be able to maintain their power and control over the broad masses of people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    I believe we should view our movement against psychiatric abuse (including the anti-psychiatry wing) as in the same type of position as the environmental movement. Both are life and death movements of great significance and consequence, but we cannot fully protect this planet from destruction under a profit first (by any means necessary) capitalist system.

    To think we can fully protect this planet without a Revolution is a delusion promoted by all those who believe that capitalism can be reformed to become a humane system. The same could be said about our efforts at ending psychiatric abuse

    In the capitalist “marketplace of ideas” anti-psychiatry is just one of a million political perspectives relegated to the back pages or to some 30 second sound bite on the television news. If this movement becomes too powerful it will be more viciously attacked by the very powerful institutions of Psychiatry and Big Pharma. They are clearly now viewed by the ruling classes as TOO BIG and IMPORTANT TO BE ALLOWED TO FAIL.

    I am not promoting a defeatist type approach here; I am just trying to be realistic as to what we are up against. All the “fraud” and human damage done that you point out that comes from the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex, this is exactly the fodder we have to work with. All this exposes the criminal nature of these institutions and presents the masses with enough reasons to lose faith in this capitalist system and the class of people that run and benefit from its existence.

    And yes, if and when a new socialist system comes into being there will need to be an important summation of past mistakes so all forms of totalitarian control can be once and for all eliminated. That includes all forms that have derived from “mental health” systems.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Frank

    It is not a question of whether the struggle against Psychiatry and capitalism are “contingent” upon each other. It is more a question that, at this historical juncture, the capitalist system “needs” Psychiatry to maintain its existence for several reasons – both economic and political.

    For that reason, in the final analysis we will have to end a profit based capitalist system BEFORE we can fully end Psychiatry. And the struggle against psychiatric abuse on a broad scale can be a very important human rights struggle that can help expose capitalism and rally forces against ALL forms of oppression under the capitalist system.

    I believe remnants of Psychiatry will still exist after a social Revolution against capitalism. So yes, the struggle against Psychiatry (and all its forms of backward thinking about “mental health”) would necessarily have to continue after such a Revolution. But NOW, the material basis would exist for the people to finally isolate and expose Psychiatry in such a way that it would ultimately wither away and go out of existence.

    As Oldhead said in a previous comment, this does NOT mean that you can’t wage struggle against psychiatric oppression without always raising anti-capitalist rhetoric. But it does make sense to try to constantly point out the connection between these two entities. And especially, educate people how vital Psychiatry is for the future preservation of a capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Robin

    As a person who is anti-psychiatry, I appreciate your willingness to respond to this intense discussion. I also appreciate your empathy for those harmed by psychiatry and your willingness to admit past mistakes.

    Given the current levels of harm perpetrated by the institution of Psychiatry throughout the world, I believe history demands even greater efforts at speaking out about those serious problems, and the willingness to take risks at disrupting “business as usual” within the psychiatric field.

    Robin, given your unique position and reputation within the psychiatric field, I believe your words and actions could have a very positive effect at bringing about change, if you are willing to take the necessary risks in doing so. I hope to read more in the future about your efforts at taking these type of ethical and moral stances against all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    Apologies are not without meaning or importance in the struggle to end psychiatric oppression. Some members of the profession may actually stop practicing, or possibly devote their career work to helping psychiatric victims safely withdraw from their toxic drugs and cast away their labels. And most importantly some psychiatrists might actually start raising hell within all psychiatric organizations exposing the harm done and the faulty science propping up the entire institution.

    Any activity like I just mention could help to promote various splits and divisions within psychiatry. These kind of intense political divisions have historically always preceded the end of most oppressive institutions. Any and all splits within Psychiatry should be both welcomed and exploited by all anti-psychiatry activists. We should be encouraging and supportive to all those psychiatrists willing to apologize for harm done, AND for becoming active to end ALL psychiatric forms of oppression.

    However, the issue of “apologies” was not my main point in my above comment. You did not address my point about how at this time in our history Psychiatry has become such a vital part of how the current ruling classes can maintain their power and control of the masses.

    Psychiatry affords the status quo a vey effective and legal way to render potential rebels and creative agents of change ineffective through psychiatric labels, drugs, and incarceration in locked units. Also, the pharmaceutical industry has become a vital component of the entire U.S. economy, and psychiatric drugs are a major part of their profit portfolio. And for these reasons, MOST IMPORTANTLY, the future of Psychiatry is inseparably linked to the entire future of the capitalist/imperialist system – you cannot effectively fight or end one without targeting the other.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Olga

    I salute your skepticism and your willingness to bare your soul regarding your experiences both within, and with, this oppressive “mental health” system.

    This discussion reminds me of a lyric line from a John Gorka song when he sings “…where paranoia makes common sense….” Given the material circumstances we now face on this planet regarding the power of certain institutions, skepticism in the face of such enormous power is a very healthy way to view the world.

    Given the enormous power Psychiatry has gained in our society over the past 4 decades, we must reexamine all preconceived notions about what it will take to confront this beast. Especially, when we look at just how entrenched it has become within the fabric of societal forms of social control. I believe that those in power are becoming more and more aware of exactly what they have with an institution that can can so easily circumvent the Constitution and restrain and drug people at will.

    We must not forget that many of the people who are today most victimized by Psychiatry’s oppressive system are from the same social strata and groups of people who were the political rebels and creative agents of change in the 1960’s. In a newly “Trumped Up” world we should only expect this power to be exercised in even greater amounts, and perhaps even with unforeseen forms of control, in the not so distant future.

    I believe that the future of Psychiatry and the political and economic system from which it arose, (and now sustains it), are now inseparably linked. The rise and fall of this profit based capitalist/imperialist system and Psychiatry, now have the same destiny. It is up to us to put them both in the dustbin of history. Nothing short of that will lead us to a world free of such oppressive forms of power and control.

    For this reason we should expect there to be a group within the institution of Psychiatry to make apologies for the worst of their crimes. Some will have legitimate changes of heart, but others will be the kind of apologists who are trying to desperately preserve and protect this institution from a (hopefully) inevitable demise. We must do our best to sort out the genuine from the fake apologies as they develop in the future. But a HEALTHY SKEPTICISM will be one of our greatest assets in seeking future revolutionary change in the world.

    Olga, your words are filled hope and sanity in such an insane world. Carry on!

    Comradely, Richard

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Matt

    I agree with your point here. We must be able to acknowledge both aspects of this development with Murray’s self-criticism.

    Yes, it is a very significant event and laudable that Murray has made these admissions, but we must also understand the context for these developments and also examine what may be the motivations for a psychiatrist to make these statements.

    First off it reveals some of the positive advances the anti/critical psychiatry movement has made in its challenges to Biological Psychiatry. But it also reveals some of the current defensiveness and self preservation that is going on in their profession. Some psychiatrists, like Allen Frances and others, are aware that the entire scientific foundation of Psychiatry is beginning to be shaken to its core by current challenges.

    As a result of these developments many psychiatrist are consciously, or unconsciously, trying to find a way to justify and protect the future of their profession. Therefore, they see the need to criticize the more extremist positions and most vulnerable practices and positions of their profession in order to preserve their existence as a medical entity, and not lose ALL credibility.

    To build a successful movement to radically change the status quo (of an oppressive “mental health” system) we must be able to both support and praise psychiatrists willing to criticize their profession, but also TARGET the LEADERS of Biological Psychiatry who are desperately trying to defend and preserve their overall oppressive profession with partial, or half baked critiques, that deny the reactionary essence of Psychiatry’s social and political role in society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Eve

    I appreciate your critical approach and your action of conscience by quitting this truly oppressive system. In 2015 I resigned (as an LMHC therapist) from a community “mental health” clinic after 23 years of service for many of the same reasons.

    I appreciate you writing about this experience and putting the words “mental health” in quotations as part of your critical approach.

    However, I must point out that you did use the word “medication” perhaps a dozen times in this blog. Here you are being inconsistent in your critical approach by perpetuating the myth that psychiatric drugs are somehow “medications.” Real medications treat scientifically proven cellular anomalies and biological disease processes. This is hardly the case with the total lack of any true biological markers or a scientific basis for the DSM V psychiatric diagnoses.

    Biological Psychiatry in collusion with Big Pharma have spent billions of dollars, over four decades, promoting a false belief and narrative that mind altering psychiatric drugs are “medications” targeting “chemical imbalances” and brain “diseases.”

    If we want to truly dismantle this oppressive “mental health” system we must totally stop using their unscientific and harmful language describing these mind altering drugs as “medications.” Language is an important part of any historically oppressive institutional paradigm, and it will NOT change unless WE MAKE IT CHANGE – NOW!

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Princess

    You are wrong about Brooke Shields. Brooke (who had a very controlling mother who allowed her to be photographed nude as a child) ended up with a depression diagnosis and put on antidepressants. She became a poster child for Biological Psychiatry’s bogus diagnoses and drug treatments.

    Unfortunately, she became a target of Tom Cruise’s Scientology rants which was not only unfair to Brooke Shields, but also gave *System* critics a bad name.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jarett

    A truly inspiring story of someone who has been able to climb out of the Hell of the current “mental health” system and then speak out with such a powerful voice. I hope you continue to educate yourself about the criminal nature of Biological Psychiatry and use your story to educate others.

    I have a couple of questions and additional comments: How much were you influenced in your recovery by the emerging movement against psychiatric abuse – such as websites like MIA and other critical writers, including psychiatric survivors?

    Have you considered the long term effects of benzo dependency causing a condition similar to what happens with long term opiate use, that is, “Opioid Induced Hyperalgesia.” The long term use of these drugs actually makes a person more sensitive to pain, thus lowering their pain/frustration tolerance level. I believe that benzos may also cause a similar type reaction in the body due to its disturbance and overall down regulation of Gaba receptors.

    On the issue of language, especially calling psychiatric drugs “medications.” Remember the use of the term, “medications,” is a “System” term that is the strategic result of literally billions of dollars of advertising by Big Pharma in collusion with Biological Psychiatry. True medications in the field of medicine address human disease processes or other cellular anomalies in the body. Psychological distress of a severe nature is NOT a disease. Even “post traumatic stress” is a real reaction to our conflict with our environment and we should probably make it a point to leave off the “disorder” part to not reconcile with “System” language and all their DSM diagnoses. Psychiatric “drugs” are exactly that: mind altering drugs, and I believe it is very important for us to use this scientifically more accurate language to counter the false narrative promoted by Biological Psychiatry.

    Sometimes mind altering “drugs” can play a positive role for some people, especially in the short term. So by countering the “System” narrative (by not using the term “medications”) we are not necessarily promoting and “anti-drug” position. Food for thought.

    Once again, great blog! I hope you write more in the future.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    Don’t forget that Gandhi had the world renown reputation as a so-called “nonviolent/pacifist revolutionary activist.”

    It is an historical truth that during his lifetime there was not a single war he did not like, and he ended up actively helping to recruit people to fight in those wars.

    It is amazing how history is often twisted to serve certain political agendas.

    And the inspiring story of Helen Keller who became world famous (even had a Hollywood movie made of her life) by overcoming being without sight and the ability to hear, was robbed by historians of her Revolutionary essence. She once wrote an essay praising Lenin as a great revolutionary leader of the Russian Revolution. Who ever heard about this part of her life?

    We must be careful who we promote as strategic icons in the pursuit of Revolutionary change. BTW, this comment is not intended to promote pacifism as a political strategy. I am only pointing out the contradictory nature of Gandhi and how he has been promoted historically.

    BTW, I did like your blog and your use of humor to make important political points promoting anti-psychiatry. May you have a productive new year.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I agree with the criticism raised by most of those commenting here.

    I believe the there were good intentions in the posting of this article. However, the way in which it combines multiple viewpoints and a collection of conflicting half truths leads readers to some dangerous conclusions that ends up minimizing the nature of the worldwide benzodiazepine disaster.

    In my 25 years of working around psychiatrists, many often emphasized that their patients needed to take benzos “only as prescribed,” that is, several times a day on a particular schedule, and “not as needed.” We now know that it doesn’t really matter how benzos are taken, they will, in short order, lead to serious and harmful consequences.

    As Humanbeing has pointed out in her comment, the onus for problems are more often put on the patients and NOT on the doctors, Psychiatry, and Big Pharma – which is where the ultimate responsibility belongs.

    The concluding remarks of this article that end up emphasizing that benzos need to be prescribed “more carefully” is a gross minimization of the problem. This is a line that is often repeated by many mainstream doctors and psychiatrists, but is virtually meaningless in the context of the actual benzo crisis that is taking place across the planet.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Carina

    The brevity of your posting in no way undermines its oh so powerful message of wonder and hope.

    You said: ” Maybe someday I will be big enough to stand up. Maybe someday I will be brave enough to do my part and do what I should have done a long time ago.
    Amidst all the lights and tinsel, the presents and the aromas from bubbling pots my mind is needled by the unrelenting thought — does it really have to be like this?”

    Yes, we all can and must do more, and yes, that does mean taking more risks to do so. To acknowledge this truth about ourselves in these difficult times is part of the power and beauty of your words.

    “…does it really have to be like this?”

    Your words and your courage to say/write them says volumes about the true answer to this vexing question we should be asking ourselves every single day of our existence on this planet.

    Have a Great Holiday Season Across the Pond!
    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Fiachra

    I don’t see the sarcasm you describe regarding the use of the term “medications” to substitute for “psychiatric drugs.” As I said above, Psychiatry and Big Pharma spent billions to convince the masses that their drugs are indeed, “medications,” and they have succeeded quite well in getting over with this false narrative. Why should we unknowingly perpetuate this harmful narrative by using THEIR carefully chosen language?

    Why do we somehow need to “concede” to them the use of this very important issue of language? If “psychiatric drugs” had been used instead in this blog , its overall intended message would have have been far more powerfully understood by its readers. This is especially true since we are saying that these drugs DO NOT correct or treat any cellular defects in human beings. Instead, they completely DISRUPT homeostasis in the brain, leading to a cascade of body and brain disruptions.

    Real science tells us that this is NOT just a question of so-called “medications” not working the way they are advertised, or having uncomfortable “side effects” for some people. These drugs actually perturb chemical processes in the brain and body. Some people even argue that some of these chemical disruptions may have some permanent effects, or very long term negative effects.

    In fact, I would say that it might be important, in almost everything we write about these drugs at this time, to make a scientific point as to why we DO NOT call psychiatric drugs, “medications.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Marion and others

    I appreciate how you are trying educate people with this blog.

    While on the topic of language, this blog would have been much stronger if it had not conceded to using the *System’s* language by calling mind altering psychiatric drugs – “medications.”

    Real “medications” treat diseases and/or other cellular anomalies. Since we now know that there are NO such thing as “chemical imbalances” in the brain, and there are No biological markers for any psychological stressor that gets falsely labeled with invented psychiatric (disease/based) diagnoses, we must STOP using psychiatry’s oppressive language.

    Psychiatric drugs should be called exactly what they are – mind altering drugs. To call these substances “medications” only perpetuates the myths created by Biological Psychiatry, for which they spent billions to promote broadly throughout our society.

    People can understand that sometimes, especially in the short term, a mind altering DRUG might temporarily help a person cope with a major stressor in their life. However, these situations must be evaluated very carefully, for even short term use of psychiatric drugs can be harmful.

    *System* language and the myths they promote will not end unless we start making it happen NOW.

    Respectfully. Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    Great work. I appreciate how you are able to see beneath the surface of things and provide some tiny (yet significant) glimpses of positive incremental change taking in the face of such enormous reactionary power and major obstacles. It is this type of political analysis that provides optimistic hope for the future.

    This positive outlook is not based on false optimism or some kind of foolish (and harmful) positive psychology approach, but rather, an optimism based on a real materialist analysis of what is actually going on in the world and how radical change takes place within it. You inspire us all.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead and others

    On the question of how do we characterize “THE MOVEMENT?”

    I believe there is a broad based movement, that on various levels, is fighting multiple aspects and forms of psychiatric oppression.

    Many people caught up in and/or working in the “mental health” system as peers etc. might not view this as a struggle against *psychiatric” oppression but just see many things wrong with the way people are being treated on a day to day basis by some psychiatrists and other “mental health” workers in the System

    We (activists) know by analyzing history and the particular role of psychiatry in the real world, that it is, in fact, correct to label this as *psychiatric* oppression.

    Of course, not everyone fighting *psychiatric oppression* is anti-psychiatry at this time, that is, wanting the institution of psychiatry to go out of existence and placed in the dust bin of history with other formerly oppressive institutions.

    And of course there are still some radical activists who still believe that Psychiatry can be reformed and tweaked in a way that would make it an institution worth preserving in the world. We need to wage political struggle, over the long haul, to convince them and others that preserving Psychiatry WILL NOT serve the best interests of humanity and WILL NOT lead to the total dismantling of today’s “mental health” system.

    So I would say that those of us who ARE *anti-psychiatry* represent the LEFT WING AND MOST RADICAL SEGMENT of the overall *movement against psychiatric oppression.*

    I hope this is a clear presentation of my thoughts on this subject and brings more clarity about how we should discuss and characterize *THE MOVEMENT.*

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    So I will raise the question again, is the movement against psychiatric oppression RACIST?

    You are still implying by your above comment that this is the case when you made the following statement:

    “While I *am* absolutely saying this movement is just as racist as any other that exists within this nation, that’s a bit different than calling particular people out as ‘racist’.”

    So what is it? Is the main aspect of its presence (the movement against psychiatric oppression) in the real world to sustain and promote the existence of racism?

    OR is it MORE CORRECT to say that the movement against psychiatric oppression (which contains many different trends and political currents) is a VERY POSITIVE historical development that unfortunately contains many of the same forms of racism that pervades our society, and they need to be seriously addressed as part of the overall struggle.

    The position that over emphasizes the racist character of the movement against psychiatric oppression, is once again promoting an “Identity Politics” political line and assessment of the current situation. This line is ultimately divisive and holds back the overall political struggle, AND actually undermines the necessary efforts to confront examples of racism within the movement.

    And finally Sera, am I a RACIST? You have not retracted your denigration of me and my participation at MIA. In the above comment you said:

    “Does that mean you are ‘racist’ for disagreeing? No. Not exactly. It’s not that simple.”

    Well what is it? You need to be held accountable for those words that carry with them the utmost of heavy negative implications in today’s world.

    Are you capable of self criticism? Are you going to hold onto to some of your harmful words and negative viewpoints to “the death,” as you have accused those of us who have dared to wage political debate around these critical questions?

    No, I am NOT free of racist thinking. But I would like to believe that my behavior in the world AND the words I write on the internet are working towards making the the world a better place for humanity to be free of all forms of oppression and exploitation. That is what I aspire to with the best of my ability. ” The proof is in the pudding” as they say, so I guess it will be for others to make the final assessment over The Long March.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Humanbeing and Sera

    The part of this blog that dealt with “appropriation” went over the edge on this question. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with quoting Black writers/ Revolutionaries etc. who have said something profound and meaningful.

    The key question is what quotes are being used AND MOST IMPORTANTLY for what political purpose are they being used. In other words, where (and what political direction) is the author using the quote trying to take his/her readers or listeners. Is the particular quote supporting an ideology and strategy (or a particular movement) for the advancement of the cause of freedom and overall less pain and strife for ALL of humanity, OR is its purpose to support the status quo and hold back the forward direction of the struggle against all forms of oppression?

    To characterize the issue of white people quoting Black people as MAINLY a form of “appropriation,” WITHOUT EMPHASIZING THE ESSENTIAL POLITICAL CONTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE PERSON DOING THE QUOTING, is to once again fall into a form of *Identity Politics* where it now becomes an issue of “Black vs. white” instead of , let’s say, Reformism vs. Revolution.

    In the main example used in the blog to support the case for “appropriation,” it is most likely that the authors are against the direction that the speaker (using the quote) wants to take the struggle. That is the main issue to be emphasized in one’s criticism of the speaker NOT the issue of a white person quoting a Black person.

    The best way to expose this is to say, for example, “Malcolm X said those words advocating for …..(this kind of radical change etc etc.), you are using those same words to justify conciliation with the System… etc. etc. Stop appropriating and twisting the words of Black Revolutionaries to promote and your agenda of defending the status quo…. etc. etc.”

    Yes, there are examples where white people are obsessed with only Black culture and fail to fully understand the historical nature of racial oppression, and from exactly what human living conditions this culture arose out of and why it developed the way it did. This does sometimes come across as a form of racism, especially if they are making big bucks from this culture and never (or rarely) pay homage and educate people about this history.

    Most often these these kind of white youth and individuals (with lower economic status) will embarrass themselves if they persist with behaviors that lack authenticity.

    But in the grand scheme of things I’d much rather have these people identifying with Black culture (even for some of the wrong reasons) then stuck in, or identifying with, the racial superiority of the white experience and history the pervades the world we live in.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    I believe that one of the main reasons that people have felt “fearful,” “defensive,” and/or even “beaten down” from this blog is because of the way that its heavy dose of “Identity Politics” created a climate of “no right to speak” UNLESS you have the correct “Identity,” and/or are in COMPLETE agreement with the blog’s definition of racism.

    Sort of like, “Listen Up ALL You White People and Closet Racists – Up Against the Wall M$%%##F%$#&!. We own the historical rights to the slavery moniker. And any white person who has used this analogy (in the struggle against psychiatric oppression) in the past was acting as a racist AND anyone who uses it in the future will be declared a racist. And if anyone dares to disagree or criticize this position you are MOST DEFINITELY harboring racism and keeping POC from ever coming to the MIA website.”

    And then when people felt threatened by these demands and the overall verbal assault (that slammed them up against the proverbial wall) many commenters began to debate and struggle back out of fear and anger at these so-called racist charges and form of labeling. Some commenters (in this emotionally charged situation) now expressed words and beliefs (at times) that either showed ignorance about the history of racism and/or reflected a few common racial stereotypes. And BTW, I did try myself to address some of those more backward comments.

    It was then that some of the authors went into full blown “GOTCHA” mode. “AHA, WE KNEW THERE WERE SOME RACISTS HERE AND THIS ONLY PROVES OUR POINT!” This whole blog process comes across as a set up to bait and/or push people into the shadow part of their belief system. Yes, we need to take a cold hard look at these shadows but This is DEFINITELY NOT the way to challenge people or educate them about racism.

    All the valid criticisms of the blog were outright dismissed and the authors then proceeded to doubled down on those parts that were way off the mark. This was unfortunate because there was some very important issues regarding racism in this blog that very few people have discussed or debated because it was dominated by a negative core of “Identity Politics” and the over emphasis on the slavery analogy being THE dividing line question. BTW, the authors made this there the very first “STOP IT” demand to lead off the overall topic and set a negative tone that undercut healthy discussion.

    And it is important to note that there were some quite defensive responses from the authors who revealed several less than principled ways of conducting political struggle, including outright backward statements. Such as the following:

    “My personal agenda is to ensure I speak for myself first and foremost. I don’t have the power to threaten any anti-Murphy struggle and even if I did that wouldn’t be where I would place my energy.”

    Here is a classic example of “Identity Politics” making this a “Black vs. white” issue, and NOT making use of a CLASS ANALYSIS and seeing the material basis in the world for POC to seek ways to unite with the vast majority of white people (and vice versa) around a common struggle against the Murphy Bill. That is, even unite with white people knowing that many still harbor some deeply embedded forms of racist thinking, and probably will for many decades especially, unless and until, there is an overall Revolutionary change in society.

    Sera, for you to have NOT corrected or challenged Iden about this comment back to Oldhead, (and then questioned in several comments by AA and others) – this has unfortunately placed your co-author in a very uncomfortable position.

    In this situation it is interesting that we have a white person cheering on and encouraging her POC collaborative writers to freely run into the storm (so to speak) with more and more “Identity Politics” which will only lead to inflaming the climate and ultimately (and unnecessarily) casting them in a unfavorable light for some readers. This does NOT create favorable conditions for POC to participate here, nor for anyone else participating from that perspective.

    Sera, I hope you will reconsider your role in this blog and the best ways to fight racial oppression, especially how it manifests itself in the movement against psychiatric oppression. I appreciate the way you’re willing to put yourself out there with the hottest controversies, but this can be the territory where mistakes are most likely to be made. I hope we can all learn something important from this painful chapter.

    I realize that for Iden this whole blog topic and process (especially being one of the few POC writers here at MIA and thus unfairly being put in the position of trying to represent a so-called POC perspective) has been extremely difficult and untenable position, and perhaps if he had time to reconsider (in a less stressful environment) what was wrong with the above comment he would change his position. (there are other similar positions that unfortunately developed in a similar manner).

    I know just how difficult it can be to defend controversial blogs. I some times freak out from the pressure when I have written hot topic blogs, and I don’t have to deal with the whole racial issue. I want to learn more from Iden and Earl in future blogs and I’m hoping the discussion of this process will help create more favorable conditions for this to happen.

    As I said in prior comments, I will always be extremely careful when using the slavery analogy as it applies to fighting psychiatric oppression or other forms of oppression in our society. But NO ONE owns the right to use this term or analogy. And when it is misused or trivialized it then becomes a great opportunity to educate people about the true horrors and legacy of slavery in America; I will try to be a part of that process.

    I know that this discussion has caused me to reconsider the more trivial ways I have used the analogy in my everyday life, such as using humor and sarcasm with a friend by saying “I’m not your slave” when they want me to do their share of work responsibility. Or “I’ve been slaving all afternoon on this job” etc., etc. We all must carefully review our use of many forms of racially infused language.

    I hope we can find a way through this struggle to start over on better footing and create more favorable conditions to conduct these much needed discussions about racial oppression and the best way to replace the economic and political system that both engenders and thrives on racial oppression and class divisions in our society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera and Humanbeing

    Just to clarify some history here. Both Oldhead and myself were overall very supportive of your “Dear Man” blog , especially, Oldhead (who was way more active in his support than myself).

    Where Humanbeing and I (and Oldhead as well) clashed (in an overall respectful way, I might add) was over a Benzo blog. There were some themes there pertaining to us being men (and in the view of some commenters we were attempting to take over or overshadow) a blog written and supported mainly by women.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    You are correct to point out that there is a “movement” (against psychiatric oppression is how I choose to label it) with all its many divergent political trends and contending elements.

    However, a more serious problem at this particular moment in the discussion IS NOT those people denying that there is a “movement,” instead, it is those people declaring or implying that this “movement” is “RACIST,” and then using “Identity Politics” as its main means to justify such an analysis.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Humanbeing

    You are making some excellent points here about the major problems with the political content of this blog and the feelings it has aroused at MIA.

    The authors of this blog stated that their intention was to increase diversity and inclusion at MIA by creating a more favorable environment for people of color to participate at MIA and in the movement against psychiatric oppression. THE OVERALL EFFECT OF THIS BLOG AND THE WAY THE AUTHORS HAVE CONDUCTED THEMSELVES IN THE COMMENT THREAD HAS DONE JUST THE OPPOSITE.

    The following quote from the above article you referenced does have direct bearing on this blog:

    “This illustrates the real problem with modern liberalism. Not that it is too preoccupied with promoting diversity or ending all forms of discrimination — there is really no disagreement on the left that these are vitally important goals — but that these efforts and achievements are often used to mask or divert attention from the deeper structural problems of our economic and political systems.”

    While I don’t support the purpose of the above Solon article in terms of its attempts to rescue the Democratic Party, I believe there is important truth in understanding the dangers of “Identity Politics” in all radical movement for change.

    I have made some serious and respectful efforts to point out important problems with this blog (see all my prior comments) and they have been met with complete disdain and derision, that is, absent of any real critical appraisal by its authors. All I received (and other blog critics as well) was more “Identity Politics” as a justification for dismissing all criticism.

    And when I called out one of the author’s comments where I was denigrated (following what now appears to have been patronizing praise) and essentially called a racist who is “dismissing and denouncing other voices” at MIA, what did I hear back? – SILENCE!

    This is hardly an example of principled debate and discussion at MIA, and represents a prime example of where “Identity Politics” will take things at MIA if it is allowed to continue unchallenged.

    Huambeing, thanks for the courage of your comments.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Matt

    You said: “To play the devil’s advocate, as well as to highlight that critics of social justice advocates make their own valid points, I’d like to share a few conservative articles I read recently.”

    And then at the end of your comment you added the following point: “These ideas are mostly politically incorrect…”

    You have floated out a can of worms here that seems to be testing the waters to perhaps see how much people might unite with some of these more sophisticated attacks on the BLM movement. I am confused about your agenda and asking for more clarification before I respond in a full way.

    We live in an extremely racist world and the spate of police shooting caught on video cameras (and I say “caught on video cameras” only because these kind of shootings have been going on unacknowledged in our country at a high rate since slavery) It is out of this reality that the slogan “Black Lives Matter” emerged.

    Given this political reality, I believe it is politically correct to say that any person Black or white, or from any nationality, who makes a response to the BLM movement that “All Lives Matter” is either 1) terribly ignorant of this history and/or the overall history of racial oppression in this country 2) fearful of backlash from the BLM movement (especially if they are Black) and choosing a form of conciliation to this oppressive situation, or 3) or consciously upholding, defending and/or promoting racism. Of course, the third alternative is the worst position and most politically incorrect, but the other two are not very good either.

    That is my very brief and quick response to your post. But I believe it is your responsibility since you posted these quotes to explain which parts of these analyses are partially “valid” and which “…ideas are [not] mostly incorrect.” Your willingness to more deeply explain your position could help advance this discussion on important aspects of racial politics.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Iden

    Thanks for the response. I will look forward to your future writings here.

    In response to your comment: ” The question to Oldhead was serious…why should a group of marginalized folks stand on the frontlines for another group of marginalized folks that have systemically oppressed them?”

    In this situation I would prefer to view this from a class analysis. This other “…group of marginalized folk…” has NOT been principally responsible for the systematic oppression of Black people. The ruling capitalist class that rules over and exploits (or pushes over the psychological edge) these poor white working class people, and also strategically foments racial conflict and fears as a “divide and conquer” strategy, are the main enemy in this situation.

    Of course, I’m not including active racists or the KKK in this kind of a class analysis of poor white and Black people.

    And if I’m not mistaken, didn’t Nat Turner (in leading his courageous and historically significant rebellion of slaves) make a similar type of analysis by actually sparing the lives of some poor whites he encountered on nearby farms who he deemed overall not PRIMARILY responsible for slavery. Maybe, he even viewed them as potential allies in future struggles. I am looking to learn more about this history.

    Anyways, I’m looking forward to viewing that Nat Turner movie soon, despite the raging controversy about the writer and director and those advocating a boycott. Now that is a whole other hot topic that may bear future exploration, and wouldn’t that make for a very interesting discussion on race and women’s oppression – count me in.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Matt

    Thanks for the compliment and the response.

    Here is the quote from your first comment where I believe you are minimizing racism and racial profiling in the “mental health” system:
    “Also, the higher diagnosis rates of non-illnesses among black and Latin people is likely primarily due to social factors more frequent in those groups, especially poverty and lack of economic opportunity. Their getting these labels is not caused directly by their skin color in a simplistic cause-effect way. Although bias by white people “over-diagnosing” (if one can overdiagnose an invalid psychiatric non-illness) is also likely involved.”

    Yes, of course class is an important factor to consider in all this, but the overall implication of your comment tends to minimize race as the essential factor in this kind of racial profiling, and the end result is more racial oppression for an oppressed minority.

    As to the issue of “political correctness,” I believe you are misusing the term and misunderstanding how this whole term developed as a “right vs left” conflict in this country.

    It started as more and more right wing people (especially as the political gains from the 1960’s were being overturned) would criticize those on the left (including more people who would self identify as “liberal”) for vigilantly pointing out racist and sexist terminology by criticizing spoken and written prose containing discriminatory or oppressive language.

    Right wing critics would then tell (or openly chastise) people for being, or trying to be, too “politically correct” all the time. They would say things like, “lighten up” or “stop being so picky,” “it’s not that big of a deal,” and stop promoting some type of “left wing” or “liberal agenda” all the time.

    Due to political changes moving things in a right wing direction in this country, many left leaning people would cave into these sentiments and back off, or grovel in the face of this by saying something like “I’m not trying to politically correct here” and apologetically make their point, or back off all together.

    I believe the very best responses to this whole trend was to take it on in a very direct and unapologetic fashion by saying, “what’s wrong with being politically correct.” This flows from the correct assumption that there is such a thing as “political correctness.” Some words and ideas represent the forward motion of history, that is, trying to overcome all things oppressive, including outdated and/or oppressive language.

    And some words and ideas represent the status quo and the past, that is reinforcing and maintaining oppressive social relationships and trying to overall stop the forward motion of history. Therefore I believe WE SHOULD ALL STRIVE TO BE “POLITICALLY CORRECT” ALL THE TIME OR AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, AND NEVER APOLOGIZE FOR BEING THIS WAY.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    I believe there is an attempt here to silence people from using the slavery analogy and an attempt to categorize this as a form of racism for those who want to continue to debate the issue.

    Some people (i am assuming, white men) have stated that they have felt intimidated by the discussion. I cannot speak for those who may be avoiding the discussion because it is too hot or controversial.

    And for the moment, leaving aside the slavery analogy relative to psychiatric oppression, what about the “wage slavery” analogy. I spent some time in my former comment introducing this topic.

    Historically, there have been millions of followers of socialist/communist ideology, calling themselves Marxists, Marxist/Leninists, or Marxist/Leninist/Maoists (millions who were also people of color) who have fought against feudalism and/or capitalist dictatorships; many dying for that cause; many trying to create a new type of society; a world free of all forms of oppression. They apparently had no problem with and/or embraced the “wage slavery” analogy. Should we forget about or ignore this reality?

    And Sera, I would hope you would reconsider some of your past comments to me. I reread your first comment to me where you at first praise me (I hope you weren’t patronizing me) by calling me “…a very kind human being who does his best to operate with a great deal of integrity…” and then basically lump me in with every other contrary voice here, including those that show racial ignorance or outright disrespect, when you stated “…to your response which comes across as a heavily intellectualized way of essentially doing the exact same thing: Dismissing and denouncing other voices – many of whom already feel unwelcomed here – and defending your own perspective to the death.”

    I have always approached my blogs and all discussions with the utmost respect for the highest level of principled debate and discussion. I have NEVER been “…dismissing and denouncing other voices…” or “…defending [my] own perspective to death.”

    I am attempting to answer your questions. I am responding and conducting this struggled to defend my “integrity” which has been discredited by these comments AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, because I believe if a trend of “Identity Politics” takes hold in this movement (or any other one, for that matter) it will be potentially divisive and hold back the struggle for Revolutionary change.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Iden

    “Identity Politics” should not be understood necessarily in a literal sense. It is a name that has been used in the past to describe a certain political trend or political strategy. People who have not been apart of past Revolutionary, Socialist and/or Communist struggles may not be especially familiar with the terminology or with the long standing debate and political criticism of this approach to Revolutionary strategy and/or struggle.

    You said the following in a response to Oldhead: “Right now, if a Black person or another POC is oppressed and their voices discounted in the mh community do you truly believe deep in your spirit they should be going all out with you against Murphy? It’s like choosing the POTUS which one is less evil.”

    Your voice is NOT being discounted here. You have made many insightful and deeply educational comments about how racism manifests itself in society and within the movement against psychiatric oppression (including here at MIA). I have learned from you.

    Myself, and others disagree, with your position on the use of the slavery analogy and the way a form of “Identity Politics ” is being used to silence people using certain terminology and to actually stifle further debate on this subject. You, and others have NOT made a convincing enough argument for why this analogy should be avoided.

    So that should be the heart of this discussion, if you must have it. Unfortunately, the other important points within your blog on Trump’s election, “Color Blindness” and the “peer movement” are not also being discussed.

    I completely agree that the slavery analogy should be used selectively and VERY carefully, and explained with very clear and decisive historical evidence to justify its use.

    I also agree that some people who use this analogy DO NOT fully understand the horrors of slavery and its legacy in today’s society. To make this the dividing line question at this time IS NOT going to help people get to where they need to go; it has become polarizing approach in a bad way. And if you have read some of my past blogs or comments you would be aware that I’m not against “polarization” when it is necessary and reflects important dividing line issues.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    I went to great lengths to explain how I defined “Identity Politics” and what kind of philosophical outlook it was based on. The issues and struggles surrounding “Identity Politics” has a long history in revolutionary movements in this country and in the world; my involvement goes back 45 years. By the content of your response it seems as though you either did not understand or agree with the theoretical points I was attempting to make regarding what “Identity Politics” represents as a strategic approach in today’s political movements.

    Of course it is a natural process for people of different races, gender, and other common social identities etc. to often first come together as a political entity or force mainly by these types social identifications. This is a positive thing and represents many important avenues for the initial involvement of the masses struggling against all forms of oppression. This an historical phenomena and process that is necessary and important. I am neither negating OR criticizing this.

    What I am challenging here is when “Identity Politics” is promoted as an *overall revolutionary strategy or approach* for advancing an entire political movement. To build a successful Revolution in this historical era people must be able to move BEYOND “Identity Politics.”

    Unfortunately, in this case “Identity Politics” is being used as a means (and in some cases, as a “club”) to beat back other political positions with “a no right to speak” moniker based on not being a part of a specific “Identity.” THIS IS BOTH WRONG AND COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO BUILDING REVOLUTIONARY STRUGGLE. Please reread my prior explanation in my past comment for why this approach will NOT arrive at finding *truth* and will NOT act as unifying approach to building a Revolutionary movement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Iden, Sera, Earl

    The political scope of this blog, given the multiple issues raised and the way it was written, makes it almost impossible to respond without being misunderstood, or to somehow lose sight of essential aspects of its political content. I will try anyways, recognizing that doing so will be difficult and full of potential pitfalls of misunderstanding.

    The blog conclusion stated:

    “Shortly after Trump was named incumbent, Black Lives Matter released a powerful statement that concluded with the following sentence: “The work will be harder, but the work is the same.” For our own movement(s), there is also much truth in those words.”

    These words cannot be emphasized enough at this time. 9/11 dramatically changed the political landscape in the the U.S. and throughout the world. The recent election of Trump is on the same level of political significance, and it has some of its origins related to the 9/11 aftermath. With the ascension of Trump to the American presidency the world will never be the same now that the U.S. government has made a serious shift in the direction of fascism.

    This has enormous importance, as it affects ALL political movements for human rights and for the protection of the planet from total environmental destruction. This critically important topic deserves a separate blog in and of itself (and maybe I’ll attempt to write it in the near future), and to now have to veer away from this this critically important topic (to address other political issues) is a near impossible task to accomplish without somehow diminishing its political importance.

    I do salute the efforts of the authors to point out the above noted dark and challenging reality, and to also attempt to discuss issues of race and racism as it pervades every pore of our society (including those movements trying to transform it), and the struggle against racial oppression will be (and must be) a key part of any strategy to work toward Revolutionary change.

    The second part of the blog conclusion stated the following:

    “But, for us, the work had also better be different. We had better fight to include far more voices than ever before. We had better look to get much more honest about our failings and who’s been left out. Ignoring these realities is a path to nowhere. A racist movement cannot move.”

    Yes, the work for us must be very different in the coming period, including being more inclusive, but I don’t believe an increased focus on “Identity Politics” (more on this later) is the direction we need to go at this time. In fact, “identity politics” is a roadblock to building a true Revolutionary movement.

    The last sentence of the above paragraph and the overall title of the blog (including a thrust of its content) implies that the current movement against psychiatric oppression is currently racist or that it predominates it content. The very first “Don’t Do This Anymore” admonition regarding then use of the slavery analogy by movement activists is given the primary emphasis as proof of the current level of racism that exists.

    Yes, of course, racism is alive and well in this movement (and throughout our society) , and yes it needs to be identified and struggled against. But it is wrong to characterize the current movement against psychiatric oppression as “racist” at this time or to say (or imply) that the use of the slavery analogy is the PRIME example of this.

    The section of this blog on “color blindness” was very insightful and well written and gets to the heart of the matter regarding the way racial oppression is minimized in our society and in the various movements for change. Unfortunately, this section of the blog gets undercut and confounded by the misdirection of other topics.

    I believe one of the main objections for those criticizing the “slavery analogy” (as a comparison to psychiatric oppression) is the fear that to do so will somehow imply, or diminish, one’s understanding of the incredible horrors of this American institution. Or that people will believe (or will incorrectly state – as has occurred in some blog comments) that racism and the lasting effects of slavery are essentially over in America. This is a legitimate fear for people to have, but I do NOT think it is a reason enough to avoid the use of the slavery analogy, or to make this the basis for criticizing those who do use the analogy.

    Just so people know where I come from on this particular subject, America was NEVER EVER A “GREAT” COUNTRY as Hillary and Obama would have us believe. Any country that built its first hundred years of growth and expansion (and with its many remnants continuing) on the direct basis of the institution of slavery, can never be called “great.” “Greatness” will only be achieved when this entire capitalist/imperialist system is dismantled and replaced with a socialist system seeking the the goal of ending all classes and the material basis for any type of societal divisions or forms of oppression.

    Karl Marx made great use of the phrase “wage slavery” to describe the remaining forms of societal oppression that STILL existed when the system of feudalism was historically replaced by capitalism. As the foremost critic (in his time) of capitalism, he recognized and acknowledged that capitalism was, in fact, an advance over feudal relations of production. The peasantry, that now historically evolved into the proletariat, was no longer *predominantly* owned and controlled by feudal landlords. This represented an advance in society and created more favorable material conditions for future revolutionary change by bringing vast numbers of human laborers into greater social living and industrial production conditions of existence.

    BUT despite this advance in human labor conditions, it was still based on a NEW FORM of exploitation where human beings had to now SELL THEIR LABOR POWER to the highest bidding capitalist, hence he coined the phrase “WAGE SLAVERY.” And of course we know that modern capitalism and its highest form, Imperialism, still embodies many horrible forms of human oppression. Marx’s use of the slavery analogy was not done to somehow diminish the significance and horror of other forms of historical slavery. In fact, Karl Marx wrote profound works of analysis of human slavery that still existed, especially in America, where his economic and political analysis of American slavery and the resulting Civil War still stands the test of time with its insightful critique.

    To the extent that people living in an American class based capitalist society (especially one built on the basis of slavery and imperialist domination of the Third World) somehow believe they are truly free, is a serious problem and demands employing any and all creative means of education and ways to shock people to a new awareness of how the world truly operates. The “wage slavery” analogy is just one of many ways to do this because it does describe an actual economic and political realationship of domination and control.

    The recent election of Trump should be a major lesson in the reality that we live under the ILLUSION of democracy and freedom, and what relatively few remnants of political freedom that do exist are potentially on the verge of being completely wiped out.

    The slavery analogy, when used carefully and correctly, can bring to light new and additional forms of oppression that exist in the world where people may be blind to or ill informed about the nature of various institutions and their role in society. Yes, some people will use it WITHOUT fully understanding the horrors (both past and present) of American slavery. As we continue to build ALL human rights struggles in the future we can, and must, make sure that this history is kept alive. But somehow restricting the “slavery analogy” is NOT the way to accomplish this OR somehow the best way to fight racism in our movement.

    TRUTH, (AND ESPECIALLY SCIENTIFIC AND POLITICAL TRUTH), IS NOT BOUND OR DETERMINED BY CLASS, RACE, AND/OR SEXUAL IDENTITY. TO BELIEVE SO AND/OR TO PROMOTE THIS AS A POLITICAL STRATEGY IS A FORM OF “IDENTITY POLITICS,” AND “IDENTITY POLITICS” WILL EVENTUALLY LEAD US INTO REFORMISM AND PREVENT US FROM ACHIEVING THE UNITY NECESSARY TO MAKE THOROUGHGOING REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE IN THE WORLD.

    Identity politics implies that BASED MAINLY ON ONE’S RACE OR GENDER etc., a person (or persons) know the true reality of their condition in the world and/or THE way forward for their liberation. Reality and truth do not function that way in the real world. Yes, they are heavily influence by one’s (or a particular group’s) material position in the world but coming to know the truth is NOT ultimately determined by that position. There ARE NOT multiple realities out there based on race or gender etc. type determinants. There is ONE reality out there and each of us (in an on going basis) uses our minds and experience to approximate that reality. Some people are better able to do this than others for a variety of reasons. Race or gender, for example, may only be ONE of those reasons, but not the ultimate determinating factor.

    When people of color or women (for example) tell me that something I am saying or doing is offending them or possibly racist or sexist, I will listen extremely carefully and ponder with great care my future words and behavior. This IS NOT a form of pandering or shying away from possible conflict, it is plain common sense, given the world we live in and they way we have ALL been conditioned to accept forms of racism and sexism as a normal part of the status quo. This goes very deep and will take generations to root out even when more positive material conditions have been created in the world for this to happen.

    But this kind of thoughtful deliberation should NEVER stop me from advocating for what I believe to be true, and for what I believe will advance human kind towards a more just and humane world.

    There is a very strong current of “identity politics” in the above blog that gets in the way of other important political points and distracts readers from grappling with key issues facing our movement.

    “Identity politics” promotes a view that only if you identify with a certain group (race, sexual identity etc.) then, and only then, can you speak with authority (or with some aspect of the truth) on this issue or political struggle. It is ultimately a reformist approach because it leads to compartmentalizing various political struggles and prevents ways to develop a long term strategy to UNITE all human rights struggles into a single movement for liberating the entire human race. “identity politics” will ultimately lead to each “identity” group struggling for “their own particular share” of the “liberation pie” WITHOUT fully transforming the entire base and superstructure of society. In today’s world it would most likely end up promoting a view that freedom and equality is possible within a reformed capitalist society. Ain’t going to happen!

    Sera, you know that I have supported and shown great respect for all of your blogs. And I expressed high kudos for those where you been able to link racial oppression to the struggle against psychiatric oppression. Here you have presented a buffet of too many important issues at one time. Some were quite insightful, but others have completely missed the mark and undercut the ability to focus on key issues. There is no way I can fully address my issues (in a single comment) with such an important topic. I hope this will lead to further dialogue on these important questions.

    As to Matt’s comments: I support some of your reasons to use the slavery analogy, but disagree with part of your defense of such an analysis. The issue here IS NOT that people are “telling others what to do” or promoting “political correctness.” If something IS politically incorrect, then there is NOTHING WRONG with telling people to STOP doing it. And vice versa, there is NOTHING WRONG with trying to get people to do POLITICALLY CORRECT things in the world IF it is based on a scientific analysis of how the world works in the real world. For example, we both share a belief that it is wrong to call psychiatric drugs “medications.” I am planning on writing a blog that will tell people that calling these drugs, “medications,” is a form of oppressive language. I think I can defend scientifically why this is the politically correct thing to do. This is the same approach you should take with defending your use of the slavery analogy.

    And Matt, when you undercut race as the central factor (for greater racial oppression within various forms of psychiatric oppression) by emphasizing “poverty” as the determining factor, you are denying (or de-emphasizing) the amount of racial profiling that goes on when people of color are evaluated and/or diagnosed within today’s “mental health” system. The same sort of racial profiling goes on within the justice system functioning in this country, and especially the role of the police. This profiling is based on deep seeded racism embedded within the fabric of our society and has its origins going back to slavery. If you want to do justice to using a slavery analogy within the ‘mental health” system you need to clear on the this fundamental question.

    Respectfully, (after 3 hours of writing) , Richard

    Report comment

  • Caleb

    I will look forward to reading that blog. While suboxone and methadone may have some *short term * benefits for some people there are serious problems with how these drugs are being promoted and used in this country.

    Before you write that blog you might be interested in reading a blog I wrote on this very subject about 2 years ago. See link here: https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/04/manufacture-maintenance-oppression-profitable-business/

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Caleb

    The fact that you have now revealed a prior period of being on both a stimulant (vyvanase) and a benzodiazepine (klonopin), and also had to suffer from withdrawal from these drugs, adds a whole new dimension to trying to understand some of the factors that may have contributed to your psychological break. Most certainly this is fodder for another very interesting blog in the future.

    And Caleb, on the addiction question, you might find my first blog at MIA very interesting. Here is the link: https://www.madinamerica.com/2012/09/addiction-biological-psychiatry-and-the-disease-model-part-1/

    Have a good holiday, Richard

    Report comment

  • Caleb

    A very moving story and so well written. You have shown such great resilience in the face of enormous societal and individual obstacles. I am so glad you decided to be public with your story. There is so much that can be learned from your experience, and so much much that challenges the current functioning of our “mental health” system.

    Have you reconsidered the negative effects of the way our society (led by Biological Psychiatry) has labeled more extreme psychological states as some types of “diseases” with names like “schizophrenia,” and how this pseudo scientific narrative impacted your own outlook on what was happening to you. Because of this false narrative (so embedded within our society) people now doubt your story and do not even believe you ever actually had “THE DISEASE” because you are now no longer exhibiting the so-called “symptoms.”

    And additionally as it applies to the “disease” concept of addiction, if you do not currently attend Twelve Step meetings to address your “disease of addiction” to opiates, then many of those same people (infected with this similar kind of thinking) might now say you never REALLY had a TRUE addiction to opiates. After all, opiate addiction is the “disease” and NA/AA is the “medicine” – “don’t take your “medicine” the rest of your life, you are most certainly destine to relapse.” I have counseled dozens of people who have had to face the negative effects of this “disease” based narrative which stood as a serious obstacle to their recovery.

    Your story indicates that you believed (based on what you read and/or were told by medical authorities) that you had an incurable “disease” and needed to take “medications” the rest of your life to treat it. Even your current fears of a “relapse” may imply aspects of this sort of belief.

    Having done addiction support work for over 25 years and studied the effects of all kinds of drugs, your story tells me that quite possible the mind altering DRUG effects of pot (THC) may have been a catalyst that exacerbated already highly aroused emotional feelings and thoughts that you were experiencing. My experience tells me that some people are very sensitive to the effects of this drug, or that people’s relationship with pot can slowly evolve over time to a point where it becomes a “trigger” fueling more paranoid type thinking and feeling. This is especially true when a person becomes more isolated and alone and tends to be engaged in more of a *monologue* with themselves than a social *dialogue* with other people.

    And then following your emotional break, various psychiatric DRUGS had (as you described) a combination of very negative effects (lethargy, serious weight gain, a shuffling gait etc.) and quite possibly some positive effects of providing sleep and tamping down your extreme emotional state. You are very fortunate to have left behind these drugs before some of the more long term damage and negative effects that recent statistical analysis and scientific studies reveal.

    Yes, mind altering “drugs” can have very serious negative effects on people and, at other times (especially in the short term), some positive effects that may help people cope with a difficult reality, especially those experiencing more extreme emotional states.

    Caleb, I have shared my reactions to your story to express how you have inspired me (and I am sure many others) about overcoming a period of such enormous emotional distress in your life. I also would hope you would reconsider the acceptance of the “schizophrenia” label as a legitimate scientific category of mental “diseases” to be used without written quotations. Use of quotations, and other written forms of critique, would provide a necessary challenge to the Biological Psychiatry narrative that has become so deadly in our society.

    I also would suggest that to call major mind altering drugs (such as Haldol, Zyprexia etc) “medications” is to unknowingly support the current pseudo scientific narrative that these drugs are “medicines” treating “diseases.” Big Pharma and Psychiatry have spent billions of dollars over several decades convincing the public that their DRUGS are actually “medications” treating brain “diseases” by acting as “magic bullets” correcting “chemical imbalances” in the brain. I believe we must oppose this ultimately oppressive language and call these chemical substances exactly what they are – mind altering drugs.

    By making some of these changes in how we use language regarding psychiatric labels such as “schizophrenia,” and countering the “medication” myth, we are slowly creating conditions in the world where people like yourself and millions of others will not have to suffer from all the oppressive forms of treatment in today’s “mental health” system and the types of “disease based” thinking that act as a form of mental chains inhibiting more liberating ideas and alternative roads to recovery.

    Caleb, I hope you find my feedback as both helpful and validating to a truly inspiring story that must be spread far and wide.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    You said: “…we need to organize first around principles like compassion, wisdom, and strength, within ourselves and our support groups, and then reach out and dialogue with extreme and even overtly destructive voices, individuals and groups. This dialogue can help us find and even ally with what is good in these voices, and [REDUCE THE CURRENT POLARIZATION] (emphasis added)…”

    I disagree with the thrust of this blog. There will be NO reduction in “polarization,” nor should there be, UNTIL the current political upheaval in this country is resolved through major systemic changes in the both the economic and political system.

    “Polarization” has historically always preceded major social change and right now should be viewed as a very GOOD thing. We should not fear this or try to make it go away, but instead seize upon the new opportunities this opens up for us to change minds and organize forces for future battles.

    In my neighborhood (in Massachusetts) I have witnessed friends who have in the past leaned toward the Republican Party who have become outraged (and even talk about feeling traumatized) by the presidential campaign and the election of Trump. Some of these people are already building alliances with people on Facebook and elsewhere to prepare for upcoming political battles. I am amazed at the kinds of advanced discussions I can now have with these people.

    It is a waste of time to focus on trying win over hardcore right wing supporters of Trump and his ilk, or to approach this recent “polarization” by promoting more “love.” Organizing against reactionary ideas and policies and fighting for a major transformation of the status quo (in the most powerful imperialist country on the planet) is a true act of “love” for ALL of humanity. This will involve both activities of persuasion AND confrontation.

    Back in the 60’s there was the strategic approach of “unite the advanced to win over the intermediate and neutralize the backward.” Will some very backward people be won over and change their thinking and behavior through major political upheaval? Yes, of course this will happen, but it should not be the focus or major concern related to our political tasks at this time.

    A significant leap has taken place in the direction of fascism in this country. We must not fear the resulting “polarization” but seize upon the opportunities it opens up for us to advance all forms of human rights struggles. I have said it before and I will repeat it again; a profit based economic system and its related political structures stands as a major impediment to future advance of all human society. “Dare to struggle, Dare to Win!”

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Matt and Oldhead

    Matt, I was very surprised you did not participate in the intense discussion over terminology under the recent “Santa Clause” blog. This discussion focused on the terms “drugs” vs “medications” and the term “mental health.”

    “Schizophrenia” (and all that goes with it) is a key pillar propping up Psychiatry and the “mental health” industry. We must always use quotes when using this term, and/or add to to our written documents caveats about our scientific disagreements with all psychiatric labels and why.

    Oldhead, unless someone is clearly a spokesperson (or a would be spokesperson) for Psychiatry and Big Pharma, I believe we can offer a two sided assessment of their writings. That is, point out what was positive in their analysis but then offer critique of its shortcomings.

    I respect your impatience with all forms of psychiatric oppression, but Very few people are going to come to this website with a clear and precise anti-psychiatry viewpoint. We cannot, and should not, approach these debates with an “up against the wall *####$% approach” if people use some forms of backward terms or “system” analyses mixed into their overall perspective. We must take the time to sort out the “wheat from the shaft” so to speak.

    On the use of the word “psychosis”, I am not yet convinced that we should avoid this term. To me, psychosis has some descriptive value as I understand it, and it seems to imply something temporary, as opposed to a permanent condition that is necessarily connected to a “brain disorder” or “disease” (even though I know some people believe it to be a permanent condition without the use of psych drugs). But I am open to more debate on this topic. I do appreciate your critical thinking skills and your efforts to hold us accountable for every word we write.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Matt

    A great interview with some valuable information and analysis of extreme psychological states and positive ways to help people. How sad that a person with such gifts as Paris Williams cannot work in New Zealand with the very people who need his help the most.

    On the issue of the use of the word “psychotic” that Oldhead keeps bringing up in discussion threads, I believe he is making a very legitimate critique of the problems with the use of this word.

    The biggest problem is that the word “psychotic” is often used as a noun that can be interchangeable with the word “schizophrenic.” For that reason, I believe it is best to discourage the use of that term or word.

    The word “psychosis,” as in “a person experiencing psychosis,” is a much better choice and description of the process of breaking or losing touch with reality.

    I believe it is very important at this time in our movement to have some serious debate and discussion (and even sharp lines drawn) regarding the use of certain language that represents and becomes part of the overall oppressive paradigm we are confronting from the past.

    It still drives me crazy how people still choose to call psychiatric drugs “medications” and don’t grasp how this is fundamentally no different than using a racial slur. I am frequently surprised by the people who make this error or somehow believe they need to “concede” the use of this language in order to have their views accepted by the professional or scientific community.

    I know that quite often people (including myself, occasionally) simply slip up because we have been so indoctrinated by years of pharmaceutical and psychiatric propaganda. But I believe we must relentless challenge and/or correct these mistakes. Oppressive language harms people on a daily basis and we all must come to terms with this reality. I plan to write on a blog on this particular subject very soon.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Marie

    Many well meaning, hardworking, highly educated Germans either supported, or remained silent, when the Nazis were gathering momentum and influence in Germany during the 1930’s.

    If this conversation makes you, or others, feel uncomfortable then I’m glad; we should all feel very uncomfortable at this time.

    Oldhead, as bad as Clinton and other Democratic leaders are and have been (and I do view them as criminals as well) none of them have advocated (at least publicly) suspending parts of the Constitution and large scale suspension of other basic human rights (yes, I am aware of the Murphy bill). To use the “fascist” word to describe current Democrats is a serious misuse of the term and has the effect of underplaying the severity of the current leap that just took place in the political landscape.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Marie

    It is the capitalist/imperialist system that is flawed (the word “flawed” grossly understates the overall harm perpetrated by such a system). All the the candidates and/or political leaders who control or compete for power in that system are merely a reflection of those “flaws.”

    That being said, if people (especially human rights activists) are unable to see the qualitative leap that just took place in the direction of fascism in the U.S, then the collective “insanity” that this represents scares the shit out of me. It is beyond the time to WAKE UP and start marching to the barricades; we’ve got a lot of work to do! It is no time to sit back and be a “good German.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Explorer86

    You are repeating some of the worst lies promoted by Big Pharma and the Pain Industry. The 75% figure is referring to newly addicted people introduced to heroin after first developing an opioid dependency via prescribed pain drugs. The prescribed pain drugs will inevitably become more difficult to obtain from doctors and no longer provide enough of a drug effect. As an alternative, heroin and other related street drugs became more easily accessible and are cheaper to purchase.

    And when heroin becomes not enough to get the right effect or too expensive given the amounts needed, that’s when people add benzos which creates the “perfect storm of addiction” that more often than not leads to death from overdose.

    The 1% figure (you repeat above) developing a problem with pain drugs, is pure fiction and pharmaceutical propaganda. Long term use of opioid drugs will almost always lead to dependency and/or addiction issues and will often lead to people actually becoming MORE sensitive to pain thus requiring even more drugs to get the same effects.

    It is actually a sad fact (and a commentary on the state of modern medicine) that it take a famous comedian to provide some of the very best factual information and analysis of the current opioid drug crisis. This video should be spread very widely to every one possible.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • AA

    Thanks for the response;

    You said: “In my opinion, whether you say psychiatric drugs or psychiatric medications, the issue is they cause great harm. That is what the focus on the message needs to be.”

    The important aspect of this discussion is to look at the fact that medications are viewed in general as “healing agents” that cure diseases and/or treat cellular abnormalities. In this sense they are almost always viewed as very positive and necessary substances to put in your body.

    Big Pharma and Psychiatry colluded at the highest levels (for 4 decades), spending billions of dollars to convince hundreds of millions of people that their newly developed psychotropic drugs were in fact “medications” that heal
    psychiatric “diseases/disorders.”

    Unfortunately, the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex has been highly successful in their PR campaigns and have won over the broad masses to believe that psych drugs are , indeed, “medications.” That is, people now believe they are both safe and very “HELPFUL/HEALING” substances to put in their bodies. All this promotes the belief that these mind altering substances “cure” people’s “broken brains” and therefore can resolve all their psychological distress.

    Why should we continue to CONCEDE to Big Pharma/Psychiatry’s need to pass off these mind altering substances as “medications” and all that this word connotes to the general public? Why should we acquiesce to promoting a key aspect of the Biological Psychiatry narrative?

    Every time we use the word drugs instead of “medications” (and explain exactly why when necessary and when asked) we are undermining their efforts to promote their view of psych drugs as “magic bullets” healing damaged brains. Please reconsider and ponder the importance of how they use language and why we need to emphasize this as an important issue in our movement.

    AA, as to your point that psych drugs are in fact, “symptom suppressors.” I think we need to be careful here. When someone becomes depressed after their mother dies or becomes highly anxious after a sexual assault, should these human reactions be labeled as “symptoms.” This is a medical term that implies that the depression or anxiety are some type of “internally caused” problem in the person experiencing them. The oppressive Medical Model makes sure to convince people that these are as a form of “ill health” and/or a brain “abnormality.”

    We know that in these circumstances the person’s depression and anxiety are actually normal human reactions to abnormal conditions of life. We must oppose all attempts to pathologize these normal human responses and promote psych drugs as the solution by passing them off as “medications.”

    If anything, the use of the word “symptom” might more accurately apply to our using the analogy that we live in a “sick” and “diseased” society that produces enormous stressors and forms of trauma on a daily basis. In this context we are making it clear that people’s extreme psychological distress (that gets incorrectly labeled as “mental illness”) flows from people’s conflict with their environment, not from brain “abnormalities.” Unless we plan on developing further this type of analogy I think we should probably avoid the use of the commonly accepted medical term, “symptom.”

    AA, more food for thought, but in this case making sure we eat the “best” food makes an important difference to our overall nutrition. (if I can use a food analogy in this highly important scientific and political dialogue).

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Tim

    You said: “Like I said in my article, the chemical deficiency is created after the medications are ingested. So, in a way, you’re very correct. It is because of a chemical imbalance that Big Pharma is making billions of dollars. It’s an iatrogenic chemical imbalance caused by the chemicals.”

    When you say “Its an iatrogenic chemical imbalance caused by the chemicals,” this is precisely why it is SO important to call these substances exactly what they are – mind altering psychiatric drugs. This is both more scientific AND, most importantly, counters the false narrative promoted by Biological Psychiatry and Big Pharma.

    Why is it so difficult for you to accept my feedback regarding the vital importance of contesting Medical Model terminology? Historically, changing language has been a critical part of making social change, and this is so necessary and true when taking on the whole “mental health” industry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • AA

    You said:”… I personally am not going to be too critical of a writer for using the term, “psych medications” if this person agrees with a good portion of our issues. It seemed to me that Tim qualified on this basis but perhaps I am missing something.”

    I think the major point here is not whether or not the author “agrees with a good portion of our issues” but rather how does his writings influence the broader public? That is, how are we educating the masses about the critical difference between what has been advertised (with billion dollar PR campaigns over 4 decades) as “medications” but are, in fact, mind altering psychiatric drugs that overall cause great harm to people?

    Is it not vitally important to counter the Biological Psychiatry (Medical Model) narrative that these psych drugs “correct,” “fix,” and/or act as “magic bullets” targeting the brain’s “chemical imbalances?” What better way to do this than to completely dispel the myth that these drugs are, in fact, some type of “medication.” “Medications” that are promoted as allegedly curing brain “diseases?disorders.”

    In this situation language and terminology are critically important to advancing our movement by further educating the masses about the dangers of the Medical Model. Tim C’s critique of “chemical imbalances” was very good but he weakened his overall analysis by conceding to Biological Psychiatry the use of THEIR terminology (for which they spent billions to promote) in regards to “medication” vs. psych drugs and the use of “mental health” and “mental illness” without the necessary challenging use of quotations.

    Unfortunately, my attempts to make the above points have been met with derision and defensiveness from the author. This defensiveness led to him label me as “authoritarian,” “dogmatic,” and “single-minded.”
    Do you believe my analysis above is making valid points to be discussed here at MIA? And do you believe that his use of negative labels was an appropriate response to make in this important dialogue?

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Nickfitz

    You said:”Good luck and best wishes for your future anger-filled change and transformation!”

    Is this how you want to conduct dialogue at MIA by using arrogant sarcasm and English lessons to mischaracterize and denigrate other people’s viewpoints? Your arrogance in the above comment matches similar comments made to me at the end of several responses from Tim Carey, the author of this blog. You apparently share several things in common.

    I find it hard to believe that you never get angry and always function in an emotionally “contained” and “pragmatic” manner. It may reflect why your views do not contain a sense of urgency for overcoming oppression in the world, and you look down upon those whose emotional responses to this oppression might contain anger. Or perhaps you channel all your alienation and anger into the passive AGGRESSIVE forms of sarcasm and put downs such as above.

    Of course the world needs more humanity. If you read any of my writings here at MIA (including the body of my comments) or were aware of the content of my work for several decades, you might become aware that human compassion and love is the foundation and driving force of my motivation for change.

    But Nickfitz you labeled me an “angry old man,” so I addressed the issue of “anger” not the issue of the need for more humanity in the world. And when I called you on it and asked you to justify your remark about anger your reply dodged the issue and focused on the fact that I added the words “out of control” (which I thought was your implied meaning).

    So again, why the original comment about anger, and what was wrong with my political critique of Tim.C’s blog?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Nickfitz

    I proudly plead guilty to both charges. I have no control over my age nor do you. And maybe if you post more here at MIA other readers will eventually be able to determine whose ideas (including yours) are actual “young,” that is, innovative and creative enough to contribute towards transforming the world into a less oppressive place to live.

    And yes, I am angry because I live in a world filled with trauma and multiple kinds of oppression, and I cannot, and will not ignore it.

    Are you NOT angry? If you are NOT angry then you are not alive with both your eyes and heart wide open.

    There is nothing wrong with anger (in fact we need more anger not less in this world) it is what we do with it, or how we express or channel the anger that is so important in making positive change.

    Now having said that, I will ask you the same question that I asked Tim (which he repeatedly refused to answer), what words or phrases did I write in ANY of my comments that were disrespectful or represented out of control anger or any other negative label (such as Tim used) that you might wish to give them, OR deserved your very flip and sarcastic remark about anger and age???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Tim

    Ok, you have finally exhausted me since you choose not to directly respond to any of the questions I have asked you to defend, especially those in which you used negative labels to describe me and my methods of political discourse.

    I must point out (once again) that in the context of this entire discussion the use of quotations for key terminology is not a minor or trivial matter as you have recently implied in your last few comments. These involve hugely important and highly contested issues that will surely be discussed and debated for years to come.

    And as for my comment about your “zinger” regarding having better things to do than dialogue with me, this was in response to your joint response to Oldhead and myself where you stated the following:
    “Hi Richard and Oldhead,
    I’ll have to bow out of this one. If there are things that are useful in this discussion you then that’s terrific. It’s gone way past being productive or useful for me.”

    Tim, I clearly get the message that you believe you could learn nothing of importance by dialoguing with me. I guess I wasted my time with you, but I do hope others were listening.

    And you should be more careful about attributing a quote to me, involving the use of the phrase “totally clueless,” which, in fact, was made by Oldhead.

    And if you would carefully read all the comments here, you would know that I was not hesitant to criticize Oldhead twice for using this arrogant phrase, which I believe was NOT helpful in promoting positive dialogue in this discussion.

    And finally, your very last little diddy of a comment to me was quite passively arrogant. You said:”I really do hope you get the revolution you’re after.”

    Do you not see the arrogance dripping from this comment? As if the whole concept of “Revolution” is a personal matter aimed at pleasing someone’s individual agenda. And in this case (based on your prior comments about me), my supposed narrow and “dogmatic” approach to political change for which you declared without foundation or substance to back up the personal sleight.

    “Dare to struggle, Dare to Win” Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    If I am going to be honest with you, your use of the phrase “totally clueless” was a major arrogant put down of Tim Carey (remember the movie title, “Clueless”) that has the effect (if not the intention) of embarrassing someone, and will almost certainly shut off all further dialogue.

    Your use of the phrase “largely clueless” in your response above, was a smart ass remark indicating that you did not accept the first criticism and you were basically doubling down on your original arrogant comment.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Tim

    Oh, so now you want to bale out on this discussion without addressing ANY of my criticisms of the way you mischaracterized my responses to your using highly charged words (like “authoritarian,” “dogmatic”, and “single-minded”) to describe both my ideas and the way I conduct political discourse at MIA, and even implying that this might be how I would treat a client of mine.

    And then you have to throw in the zinger at the end that you have better use for your time then to engage in dialogue with the likes of someone like me.

    I will repeat a previous question I raised in a prior comment: “I believe that I have conducted this discussion in a very respectful and non-authoritarian way. Please tell me one word or phrase I used in any of my comments that deserves to be characterized negatively in the way you have…”

    If you can explain to me where I somehow became disrespectful or “authoritarian” I will seriously listen, for I do NOT want to EVER become like that. And in the spirit of “criticism/self-criticism,” I would hope you would be also be open to taking another look at your defensive responses in several of your comments where you directed negative labels towards me without foundation.

    I spent a great deal of effort engaging in very respectful and principled dialogue with you explaining in great detail why I could not rate your blog as “excellent” and where I thought there were significant enough inconsistencies in some of your arguments that prevented me from wanting to spread widely your overall analysis.

    I liked many aspects of your blog and told you so, and even resorted to a kind of begging by saying “please, please, please” justify why you shouldn’t make some changes in the content related to three key points so as to improve its overall political impact. I sincerely wanted this blog to become better and a more useful tool in the struggle against Biological Psychiatry.

    Tim, I take my reputation at MIA, reflected both in the content of my more than a dozen blogs, and also regarding the way I conduct dialogue within the comment section, very seriously. If you choose to disengage at this time, after making comments that I believe denigrate my reputation with no willingness to substantiate the use of your negative labels, I will have lost all respect at this time for your participation here. Please reconsider this, for this doe not and should not end like this.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Tim

    Here again you have mischaracterized my role and involvement in this dialogue by labeling me as “authoritarian” and “dogmatic” and “single-minded” because I have dared to challenged the inconsistencies in your analysis.

    You said:”Are you saying that if I don’t come around to your way of thinking then I’m not “truly open minded” and not using my “critical thinking skills”?

    No, Tim I would NOT characterize this dialogue in the above slanted way you describe. And is it fair for me to question whether or not you always react so defensively to someone who might point out inconsistencies in your thinking?

    Yes, I do hope you will become more scientifically accurate and consistent in using your “critical thinking” skills. Skills for which you have so adeptly and correctly made use of in critiquing the “chemical imbalance theory.” If you do not make these changes (over time) then I believe this historically important political movement we are building will soon pass you by and your many critical thinking skills (i have also read your other blogs as well) will be sorely missed.

    I believe you underestimate the impact of your use of Medical Model terminology with both your readers and the clients you serve in therapy. Your continued non-critical (in a thorough going way) use of the terms “mental illness” and “mental health” may have a negative impact on your clients in ways you are not even currently aware of. Think for a moment how powerful it would be to discuss, in great depth with your clients, the controversy over the use of these terms. The same is most definitely true for the debate about “medications” vs. psychiatric drugs.

    Yes, there are two sides to most controversies. It is NOT being “single-minded” and “authoritarian” to rigorously and passionately (using the very best of science) to argue for one particular side of the controversy over the other.

    One side of the conflict usually represents the forward motion of history and what represents the best way forward for the future of humanity. The other side usually represents maintaining the status quo and what will actually hold back the forward progress of history.

    This is so very true when looking at the battle over climate change and against its many deniers, and no less true (and important) when looking at the battle over the use of Medical Model terminology within the oppressive status quo of today’s “mental health” System.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Tim

    BTW, Oldhead is one of my favorite commenters at MIA and I consider him a close comrade in the struggle against psychiatric abuse. But I agree that his use of the phrase “totally clueless” was inappropriate and not helpful in the context of this important dialogue. However his use of the analogy comparing psych drugs to alcohol is worth pursuing in this overall discussion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Tim

    You said: “So you will not grant me the right to pursue the revolution in the way I think it should pursued. Hmmm. That seems a lot like a mental health professional not letting a patient determine the way they would like to be treated.”

    I believe that I have conducted this discussion in a very respectful and non-authoritarian way. Please tell me one word or phrase I used in any of my comments that deserves to be characterized negatively in the way you have in the above comment.

    You just implied (and stated) that I am “denying” you the “right” to believe in a certain way. And that I might also be carrying out the same form of repressive actions with the clients I see in therapy. I would call this a serious mischaracterization of my words and a denigration of my purpose in this particular dialogue. I hope you will again reconsider your words very carefully.

    Yes, I have seriously challenged your use of certain highly politically charged (and unscientific) terms. Is this not how we all learn and transform our thinking? If you can stop the defensiveness maybe this dialogue can proceed in a helpful way. I myself, on many occasions, have had my words written at MIA challenged in the comment section (and by email), and in some instances this has led to very positive and profound changes in my thinking. And yes quite often I was also initially defensive when first challenged.

    Once again I will say that Big Pharma and Psychiatry spent billions of dollars over several decades promoting the false narrative of the “chemical imbalance theory” that can be “fixed” and “corrected” and/or “medicated” by psychiatric drugs thus “curing” the brain “diseases/disorders” that have specific labels set forth in their DSM Bible.

    Tim, you have carried out, in a ruthless and uncompromising way, a powerful critique (which I wholeheartedly support) of the “chemical imbalance theory.”

    Unfortunately, you have have found it necessary to concede Biological Psychiatry certain key aspects (use of the terms “medications,” “mental health,” and “mental illness”) within the other two thirds of their dangerous and mythical narrative. Is it not extremely important for people to point these inconsistencies in your analysis? How is it being “authoritarian” for me or others to do so?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Tim

    Thanks for responding.

    You said: “I didn’t do that [use quotes around these terms] because that the language that is used at the moment. I don’t ordinarily put quotation marks around all made up things I discuss like mermaids, unicorns, Major Depressive Disorder, Schizophrenia, lovesickness, heartbreak, and so on.”

    First off, just because it is the “…language used at the moment.” is NOT a good reason to continue using unscientific and harmful language. Would you say the same thing about continuing to use racist or sexist language that certain backward people still want to use today? Challenging and changing the old language is part of the Revolution that needs to happen if we are going to change the world.

    And there is a world outlook of a difference (in both meaning and political impact) between using the word “mermaid” and the word “schizophrenic”; the latter is infinitely more oppressive when repeated as if it is a real entity with scientific meaning to back it up. Talk to someone who was given this label and told they will have this “disease” and need to be on major tranquilizers for the rest of their life, and then lost years of their life to this myth which became so much of a part of their self identity during this period of time.

    You said: “I also didn’t put quotation marks around “medication” because psychotropic medication is medication.”

    Is this not the equivalent of saying a statement like “mental diseases are diseases.” Both statements lack any scientific credibility and create real harm in the real world.

    Biological Psychiatry, in collusion with Big Pharma, are the ones (going back 40 -50 years ago) who declared psychotropic drugs to be “medications” and declared that people who experience extreme paranoia or hear voices etc. should be diagnosed with the “disease” called “schizophrenia.”

    Where is the science to back up the declaration that mind altering psychiatric drugs are “medications,” or that there is the basis to declare bizarre (bizarre if you are NOT aware of the details of the person’s narrative) behavior and thoughts as a “mental disease?” Is this not the same wishful thinking and speculation that led to the creation of the myth of “chemical imbalances?”

    Doesn’t Psychiatry and Big Pharma have enormous vested interests in propagating the belief that SSRI’s, benzos and neuroleptic drugs are somehow just like “medications” acting as “magic bullets” targeting and correcting “chemical imbalances” in the brain?

    You are NOT disrespecting someone taking these drugs by avoiding the term “medication.” On the contrary, if they were to ask you why you avoid that term this could become a great opportunity to educate people about the true nature of these drugs with ALL their (sometimes) immediate benefits AND long term costs/harm etc.

    And BTW, I am not anti-drug; sometimes mind altering drugs can play a useful role for some people, especially in the short term. But let’s call them what they actually are, not what some people may WANT them to be, for what ever agenda it may serve.

    You said: “…I do find it curious that you would withhold this otherwise “excellent” article because it doesn’t have as many quotation marks as you would prefer. It’s these kinds of differences that make life so interesting.”

    This has NOTHING to do with what I “prefer” or someone else’s personal “preferences.” This is not about choosing chocolate over vanilla or somehow celebrating the variety of “differences” in life. This is about unscientific and harmful language that is part of the very foundation upon which Biological Psychiatry was constructed and now reinforces and justifies all the harm carried out in its oppressive “mental health” System.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    I have made it very clearly known to MIA leadership what my disagreements are with the use of “mental health” in the new MIA tagline. I hope others do so as well.

    Based on a very limited response, I am led to believe that this new tagline may still be a work in progress and not yet firmly set in stone. I truly hope this is the case.

    As to Tim Carey’s use of Medical Model terminology. I would hope that he formulates his own views based on the very best that science currently provides us, and not based on what others find it necessary to concede to doing. If he is truly open minded and uses his critical thinking skills as ruthlessly as he did while exposing the “chemical imbalance theory,” then he should come to see the importance of challenging the use of the term “medications” for psychiatric drugs and using “mental health” and “mental illness” without quotations.

    Thanks for your positive feedback.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Tim

    You are a very good writer, and while using the Santa Claus analogy you have created a very damning exposure of the “chemical imbalance theory” and of those that propagate this Biological Psychiatry myth.

    I would love to label this an “excellent” blog and find ways to spread it far wide, but I CANNOT (and will not) do this for the following reasons: you continue to use the terms “medication,” “mental health”, and mental illness.” Please, please, please, justify for me why you should not rewrite this blog replacing “medication” with “psychiatric drugs” and why you should not place “mental health” and “mental illness” in quotations?

    Tim, You made the following statement:
    “Believing in, and propagating, the chemical imbalance untruth does matter. It matters for a whole lot of reasons. While the comparison between Santa Claus and the chemical imbalance narrative is instructive, it should not distract from the damage that is done by continuing to promote the manifestation of psychological distress as attributable to out of balance brain chemicals.”

    Every single argument you make in the above statement could also apply to the continued use of “medication,” and the use of “mental health” and “mental illness” without quotations. The overall harm done by these above terms is essentially NO LESS than the harm done by excepting and propagating the “chemical imbalance” theory for which you have correctly dissected.

    Medications treat cellular disease processes; mind altering psychiatric “drugs” alter human brain chemistry. Sometimes short term alterations may be helpful to some people (while overall harmful in the long term), but in no way does it change the scientific fact that they are essentially “drugs” not “medications.” And the terms “mental health” and “mental illness” are in their essence “Medical Model” terms that imply that out of the norm (or not so out of the norm) thoughts, emotions, and their resulting behaviors can somehow be declared “ill” and/or the more extreme term, “diseased.” Both the continued use of these terms, and especially the concepts they represent, harm millions of people and reinforce (on a daily basis) the existence of a very oppressive “mental health” System.

    The maturity of our current scientific and political understanding on the use of the terms “medication” vs “psychiatric drug” (and “mental illness” and “mental health”) is such that there is absolutely no longer (if there ever was) any rational reason to make harmful CONCESSIONS in our writings by accepting the continued use of these unscientific and politically backward terms. WE DENIGRATE, AND RENDER LESS PROFOUND, OUR ANALYSES BY CONTINUING TO MAKE THESE CONCESSIONS IN OUR USE OF TERMINOLOGY. THIS DAMAGE BEING DONE WILL NOT STOP HAPPENING UNTIL WE MAKE IT STOP HAPPENING!

    We are all better than this, and we all need to raise our standards of scientific and political critique to make greater strides in the movement against psychiatric abuse and to hasten the advance our historically necessary cause.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Alex

    You ask: “What is it that keeps psychiatry alive and well, despite all of its damning critics, and all the evidence of fraud and systemic malpractice, and all the horror stories out there now that are associated with having been a psychiatric client? Why has this not been enough to close down the shop?”

    To answer that question you just have to follow the money and the power. Big Pharma is now an essential component of the U.S. economy; it is too big to fail or somehow be allowed to suffer significant loses. And Psychiatry, with all its labels, drugs, and power to incarcerate without due process, plays a critically important role in subduing (or rendering “comfortably numb”) those sections of the people who historically have been rebels and creative agents of change.

    As long as this profit based economic and political system continues to stand as a major impediment to all human progress, these forms of oppression will not only sustain themselves, but most likely expand in influence. We all have much work to do to change this reality that presently consumes us all.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    Great idea and great work that has now come to full fruition. This is truly a significant blow struck against Psychiatry. Your legacy does and will continue to live on.

    This victory, and the whole way it was conceived and carried out, should stimulate all of to think about new ways we can contribute to bringing down the beast of psychiatric oppression in all its forms. Congratulations – “Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win.”

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    You tell a powerful story of great loss with enormous challenges about being able to find a meaningful road forward for helping people who are in severe psychological distress. To travel on this difficult road, however, without first fearlessly summing up past journeys in a deeply critical way, will not lead people to find truly helpful solutions to human suffering for those in severe conflict with their environment.

    Your use of the terms “mental health” and “mental illnesses” without quotations indicates that parts of your outlook still remain stuck within the restrictive (and ultimately oppressive) confines of the medical model. Biological Psychiatry promotes the view that unusual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors can be “ill” and “diseased.” We CANNOT help people find solutions to their problems, on these difficult psychological journeys, if they believe (and we reinforce the belief) that they are somehow genetically defective or mentally “disordered.”

    The relatively few elements of your personal narrative regarding your father’s struggle with depression (leading to him taking his own life) describes him growing up with a mother who was also also stuck in deep depression, heavily drugged and oppressively shocked by Psychiatry. She, also, ultimately hanged herself, as did her son years later. Doesn’t this horrible experience for your father (as a younger person) provide more than enough explanation for his deep depression and desperate behavior. And who knows the actual story of what pain and trauma your grandmother endured as a child and later as an adult.

    Jonathan, I respect your sharing of a deeply personal history, and your efforts to help others who are in deep emotional pain. I ask you to reconsider your use of medical model terms to describe these intense human struggles with emotional suffering; suffering often rooted in extreme trauma based experiences. The incorrect use of certain words and terminology, while developing alternative supportive environments, can take on powerful meaning that may actually undermine the well intentioned efforts to help those in distress. Language is always a big part of Revolutionary change and it must be taken very seriously.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Meaghan

    I hope this is only Part 1 of your story on the use use of psychedelics for trauma recovery. You have written a very powerful blog that leaves me wanting to know so much more about the transformative nature of your experience. I have an open mind on the possible therapeutic nature of these type of mind altering drugs in a safe and controlled environment, as you seem to have had.

    As a therapist, I have used EMDR for many years, and I believe that it was overall successful in helping many clients come to terms with past trauma. At the same time I know it has limitations and does not always go deep enough to help everyone.

    New theories about human memory have proposed that each time we revisit past events in our mind (and especially sharing this experience, out loud, with another human being) we are reconstructing and altering the original memory. I believe this is potentially a revolutionary analysis about the malleable nature of memory, and could be an extremely helpful guide for developing new ways to help people with a trauma past.

    EMDR often provides a safe and very unique way to revisit those past memories and create favorable conditions for reprocessing past traumatic events in a way that can lead to more self acceptance and self love. All of which are so horribly shattered as a child (or adult) with unbearable amounts of shame and guilt, believing that one was somehow responsible for what happened or “should have” done something different to avoid being traumatized.

    It is so wrong to tell such a victim “oh, it was not your fault, you couldn’t have done anything different because you were only a child etc. etc..” Most clients will shutter at such well meaning comments, thereby creating impenetrable resistance to further exploration of the actual events. Unfortunately, this can often short circuit some type of deeper assessment of human responsibility and accountability for how trauma events unfolded. These type of more self accepting conclusions about one’s experience in trauma are only something that (through positive memory reconstruction and reprocessing) that a client can determine (over time) FOR THEMSELVES. And most likely, this kind of deeper assessment will never reach (nor should it) “absolutist” or “black and white” conclusions regarding why past events unfolded in the way they did.

    Everybody knows deep down (even a child) that there are are (or were) different options, even under the most oppressive of conditions. This can often be one source of the unrelenting guilt and shame, especially when ONLY viewing these events through the prism of an adult mind many years later.

    It is only during deep therapeutic reprocessing (using whatever method that might work for the particular individual) that a trauma victim can truly come to terms with the actual limitations (most assuredly, one being that, indeed, they did only possess the relatively primitive mind of a child) that dictated an extremely limited number of choices under extremely difficult circumstances.

    The same can be also be true for more adult victims when they finally (in a deep and unblocked way) more thoroughly re-explore their past trauma events. All of this work will hopefully eventually allow a person to get to a point where they are no longer so “hard” on themselves and can truly understand, in a deeper way, the multitude of circumstances that so narrowed their choices and ultimately dictated the unfortunate outcome of such painful experiences. It is here where a deeper self acceptance and self love is finally achieved and the person can put these events in the proper perspective. Not forgetting their past, but no longer allowing the past to dictate or control future thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

    We all have experienced, on some level, various forms of trauma. Trauma experiences create many kinds and layers of emotional armor. This armor can be very protective and useful for certain periods of out life, but also they can eventually get in the way of more thorough going recovery and future progress. My own past experience with psychedelic drugs revealed how vulnerable they can make you feel. While this can have its pleasures, it can also be very scary under certain circumstances.

    I can imagine, that for some people dealing with past trauma and their own armored emotional defenses, psychedelic drugs (in a safe environment) might break down those defenses in a helpful way, thus allowing some people to more completely explore and reconstruct new memories of past trauma events in a therapeutic way. I am open to that possibility and definitely want to learn more.

    Meaghan, thanks for having the courage to open up this topic by sharing your own experiences and exploring a very controversial topic. Please keep wring on this subject, we definitely need to learn more.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Michael

    I just got around to reading your great blog on shame and guilt.

    I believe you have correctly linked these destructive emotions and thoughts to the class nature of our capitalist system and the “dog eat dog” essence of a profit based system and the resulting “Social Darwinism.”

    What was left out and deserves more attention on the subject of “guilt and Shame” is the powerful role of organized religion and the pervasive concept of “original sin.” Millions of people have embodied, from early childhood, the view that they are born “sinners.” That somehow we all embody the influences of the”Devil” and must spend our entire lives trying to purge ourselves of “evil.”

    With these powerful religious influences, that even pervades even some of the less “condemning” type church philosophies, is it any wonder that people engage in such self loathing and self condemnation?

    To heal as a society we must cast away these religious delusions and vociferously declare that there is NO such thing as “sin.” We do not need religion or concepts of “sin” to be moral people. Human beings simply make human mistakes. We can all learn from those mistakes and, yes, genuine remorse can be an important part of that learning experience.

    Just some added food for thought in a vitally important topic. Michael, thanks for writing this blog.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Thanks Katinka for your response.

    We all have much more to learn about the dangers of these drugs and a lot more activism to wage. I am afraid that until the full criminal role of Big Pharma and APA is thoroughly exposed, and the top leaders of these institutions are actually prosecuted for fraud and negligent homicide, things are unlikely to change much regarding the prolific prescribing of these drugs.

    You are in unique position to have a powerful voice in this long term struggle. I hope you can continue to maximize your positive influence as a creative agent of change.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • Katinka

    This is an important and powerful story and video. Your narrative has the power to change lives as well as the current political and medical landscape. I applaud your courage and advocacy.

    One important concern I would raise regarding scientific content is the emphasis in parts of the narrative on genetics and DNA. It was stated on several occasions that some people’s genetic profile makes them allergic to these drugs and creates the more violent reactions to these drugs. It was even stated that this may involve 1% of the population. I have read about certain genetic tests related to a person’s ability to metabolize these drugs, but this is still in a state of scientific infancy.

    While it MAY be proven that some people have more violent reactions to these drugs than others, or that people fall on some kind of continuum of specific drug reactions, this has not been definitively proven as of yet. Unfortunately, the inference we are left with is that perhaps the rest of the population might benefit from these drugs and may not experience the physical discomfort and emotional numbing that can destroy people’s lives. I believe there is growing evidence that these sort of reactions are rather widespread based on survivor narratives and not just specific to 1% of the population.

    It was even stated in the narrative that these drugs “save some people’s lives.” There is NO definitive proof that these drugs have actually save lives, but there is growing evidence that indicates they have caused deaths as the book and video make clear. There is no need to concede the point that that antidepressants have save lives when this is not yet a proven fact. Yes, some people do claim they were helped by the drugs but there are many factors, including placebo effect, that can explain this belief.

    Yes, while some people may have an immediate “allergic” or “crazy like” reaction to these drugs, others who don’t have these sort of quick reactions may actually suffer a slow decline into some kind of SSRI Hell that seemingly has no obvious medical or psychological explanation. We do know that over time SSRI’s perturb the brain’s sertonergic system; this may be true for ALL people who use them. For these people, simply stopping all the drugs, may actually start them on a horrible journey into protracted SSRI withdrawal that could take years to recover from. There are multiple internet sites (involving tens of thousands of people) where people seek help from “citizen scientists” when feeling abandoned or betrayed by their own doctors.

    Given that our current understanding relative to genetics and SSRI’s is very primitive at best, I believe it is best to avoid these genetic/DNA references at this time. In fact the pharmaceutical industry and the APA are already making noise about pursuing some of these angles to actually promote their drugs based on certain genetic profiling. The above story is much more powerful (in its indictment of the System) and transcendent (universal to many people around the world) without any need to confuse the narrative with references to genetics.

    I make the above comments with the sincerest amount of respect and support for your overall message and I hope it is received with this spirit in mind.

    Respectfully, Richard D. Lewis

    Report comment

  • Gary

    Thanks for raising the important questions and themes of this blog.

    You are so right to argue that “incremental” change is not only impossible when looking at the powerful economic and political entrenchment within and around the current “System,” and immoral when looking at the amount of harm being done by today’s “mental health” system.

    However, I believe you have fallen into the same “incremental” and unrealistic trap that your blog is attempting to criticize.

    As the commenter, Oldhead, has pointed out many times at MIA, the word “Revolution” gets thrown around many times today and it often bastardizes its meaning and strips it of its fundamental and necessary components in the current historical era.

    You said: “The misdemeanours of the pharmaceutical industry have been well documented.”

    The word “misdemeanors” minimizes the nature of the crimes being committed and the seriousness of the current situation for psychiatric victims. For some of the top leaders of Big Pharma and the APA, felony fraud, false imprisonment, felony murder and /or manslaughter, more accurately describes the true nature of the crimes committed.

    You said: “Some commentators argue that rejection of the ubiquitous capitalist system is necessary to improve the mental health of our citizens meaningfully…It is, however, unrealistic to expect a wholesale rejection of capitalism by the Western world in the foreseeable future. Nor am I convinced that these generators of human suffering would not arise in other political systems.

    It is here where you slip into defeatism and reformism when you state (without any legitimate arguments to back up the statement) that “Revolution” is not only impossible, but might also contain some of the same forms of oppression that exist today.

    I say, today’s “mental health” system has now evolved (over the past 4 decades) into an institutional entity that is now inseparable form the future rise and fall of the entire Capitalist/Imperialist system itself . When looking at both the central and vitally important features of the pharmaceutical industry in relation to the entire U.S. economy, and at the important role Psychiatry and their psychiatric drugs play in neutralizing (by rendering their brains and rebelliousness into mush) some of the sections of the American and British people, who in the past have brought forth significant numbers of political activists and creative agents of change.

    Here I am talking about social outcasts and delinquents, prisoners, minorities, women and other more rebellious sections of the people. These are the very people who today receive the most psychiatric labels and drugs. This has now become very useful to the future preservation of the entire political and economic system. The ruling class may not have been aware of the important role of Psychiatry and their drugs 30 years ago, but I believe “The Powers That Be” are now increasingly aware of the value of this institution in maintaining “law and order” and will not allow Psychiatry to die or lose significant power.

    The profit motive and the Capitalist System that spawns its role in all human affairs on the planet has clearly become a major impediment to all human progress. This is especially true when looking at science, medicine, support for people in psychological distress, war, and at the current human attempts to stop the wholesale destruction of our environment.

    I believe that yes, we should all fight for some of the reforms that you propose, but let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that your reform package is remotely possible within the current political and economic system.

    Revolution will not, and cannot be the product of the struggle for reform. On the contrary, reform may often be the byproduct of the struggle for Revolution. And actual reforms that do come into being in this struggle will not last without genuine revolutionary change taking place.

    All this means we must do the necessary and hard work of summing up both the positives (of which there are many) and negatives of past efforts at Socialist and Communist revolutions (which from an historical perspective are only 165 years young), and chart a new course for the future. Nothing short of this is going to get us where we need to go. And the human rights struggles related to psychiatric oppression could be a big part of any future Revolutionary efforts.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Chrisreed

    As you know from past exchanges we share a similar perspective when viewing a critical approach to Psychiatry and the current “mental health” system. I have great admiration for your passion and spirit of activism.

    My experience over many years tells me that guarding a consistent and healthy sleep pattern is critical to everyone’s psychological stability, and especially for those who have encountered more extreme states and been labeled by the system in the past. I hope you find the ways to achieve this.

    As to your comment that stated: “ Since I am addicted to a low level of Zypreza and Klonapin…”

    I believe it may be more scientifically accurate, as well as helpful to your recovery efforts, to call this a ” physical dependency” rather than an “addiction.”

    Most likely these drugs were taken directly as prescribed by a doctor with no intent to obtain a psychological and/or physical “high.” Your physical dependency and possible resulting iatrogenic damage occurred because of medical malpractice and the oppressive practices of Biological Psychiatry.

    The current philosophy and medical model treating “addictions” is overall harmful, which makes terminology so important when seeking solutions to problems of physical dependency.

    I hope you can find the support in your area from a knowledgeable and sympathetic doctor and/or nurse/therapist etc. If not, check out online “Point of Return.” I know someone who is currently receiving positive medical help with a prolonged taper from a cocktail of psychiatric drugs.

    All the best, comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Matt

    This one of the very best blogs ever to appear on the MIA website. I do not make this statement lightly. The writing style is first rate and the the depth of research and the ability to combined such research with with firsthand experiences is outstanding. I look forward to your future writings here and believe you have a critically important leadership role to play in human rights struggle against all forms of psychiatric oppression.

    This blog should put to rest, once and for all, the need by some writers here at MIA, who still feel it is essential to use the words “medications” or “schizophrenia” as way to sustain some form of credibility in scientific debates within the deconstructing critiques of the current “mental health” system.

    Yes, these are mind altering psychiatric drugs NOT “medications.” And “schizophrenia” is a very harmful construct that remains one of THE most important constructs perpetuating the scientific underpinnings of Biological Psychiatry.

    Matt, I hope you find the following quote from my very first blog at MIA in 2012 (titled, “Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease Model”) consistent with your model explaining psychosis and other extreme psychological reactions to stress in the environment:

    (Quote) “In opposition to the disease model we might find it helpful to conceptualize and understand both addiction and symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness,” more simply as useful coping mechanisms that over time “get stuck in the on position….Some people have also postulated that human beings are, at times, attracted to altered states of consciousness. This can be a way to avoid boredom through experimentation, or, perhaps more often, become a creative way to escape or rise above the resulting discomfort or trauma experienced in a threatening environment. In the beginning stages of drug use, these substances may provide a temporary pleasurable escape from a harsh reality and/or become a very successful short term coping mechanism that actually prevents more dangerous reactive behaviors (including suicide), or perhaps even helps prevent the person from going “crazy.”

    “Similarly, extreme states of psychological distress can lead to altered states of consciousness that are mislabeled as a “mental illness” and a “disease,” but could instead be better looked at as a creative and necessary coping mechanism dealing with an experienced and/or perceived hostile and threatening environment. This coping mechanism, as with addiction, may also prevent more extreme reactive behaviors or provide an escape or temporary relief from intense physical or emotional pain.”

    “Here is the rub. A problem often arises with both substance use leading to addiction and also with extreme states of psychological distress, when these behaviors and related thought patterns are sustained for extended periods of time, the formerly helpful coping mechanisms can gradually, or even suddenly, turn into their opposite and now become primarily self- destructive, self-defeating, and socially unacceptable.* This is especially true when the short term benefits of the behavior and resulting thought patterns start to shift and begin to cause far more immediate, as well as long term negative consequences for the individual and the people around them. Some people may now actually get stuck in this new state of being and be unable to find their way out by themselves. This is the point when we might say that these once helpful coping mechanisms have now seemingly become “stuck in the on position.” (* I am aware that socially unacceptable behavior can be both useful and necessary in changing the world for the better).”

    Matt, again please keep writing, and I am sure I speak for many of us who hope to see you more active here at MIA.

    Comradely. Richard

    Report comment

  • Len

    All this tells us that France has similar environmental conditions (such as stress, trauma, poor parenting, poor educational programs, and environmental toxins etc.) as the United States and therefore produces similar physical and emotional responses from the children that mimic behaviors that get labeled ADHD – NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS!!!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • David

    Great blog; great father; great outcome.

    Two interesting parts to this story that could be of some significance and remind me of a similar story within my extended family that did not have such a favorable outcome (In this case a young 13 year old girl may still be on Zoloft and it makes me so angry and fearful.

    First, it is interesting that the mother was in favor of her daughter going on this drug because she, herself, was on this particular SSRI. We can speculate as to the way Prozac was making her feel (that is what parts of her personality and being were possibly suppressed by the drug) and how she, in turn, wanted her own daughter to experience the same response. Of course, we know that one major side effect (or main effect) is suppression of libido and desire to bond with others. This makes one question whether or not there was a conscious or unconscious agenda on the part of the mother connected to these effects.

    Equally interesting was the fact that the ex-boyfriend was also encouraging the daughter to defy the father and take this drug. Were both of these people advising the daughter in a certain direction merely because they have been duped by Big Pharma and Biological Psychiatry about the so-called benefits of these drugs, or was there some other additional hidden agenda? This is all part of the very complicated family/social dynamics triggered by the introduction of these toxic substances on the human brain.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE AND TOTAL ASS COVERING!

    Unless, and until, there is a complete investigation into the origins and development of both the benzo and opioid crisis, there can be no significant reduction in the harm being done or accountability for the medically negligent crimes committed.

    The role of Big Pharma and the American Psychiatric Association in their massive promotion campaigns for getting recognition of the diagnosis of “anxiety disorders” and then promoting benzos as the “solution” to these problems, must be thoroughly exposed. Those top leaders responsible for scientific fraud in these endeavors should be criminally prosecuted in addition to the necessary changes made in the overall drug approval process. And the complicit role of the FDA in this sordid history must also be a part of this investigation and the following political exposure.

    Without these systemic institutional changes, deaths from benzos and opiates will only continue at a high rate. This is especially true given that President Obama’s new drug initiative involves a dramatic increase in the use of synthetic opiates such as suboxone and methadone as the supposed solution to the opioid overdose epidemic.

    This System hasn’t a clue about how to define the Problem nor how to find the necessary Solution. This is why some people still dream of a Revolution.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JanCarol

    Your comments reveal great wisdom and experience with the problems of Biological Psychiatry. However, I differ on a few key points.

    You said “I’m afraid I’m with Szasz. Government and doctors should not be the gatekeepers to these drugs, and if gran wants to take her laudanum, that’s her choice, and between her and her chemist.”

    Unfortunately Sazsz was in love with capitalism and a profit based economic system. While he made enormous contributions in his critique of Psychiatry and the “mental health” system, his Libertarian views were a major roadblock for his ability to link psychiatric oppression with the tremendous political upheaval of the 1960’s. This failure to make these links with the broader anti imperialist movement served as an impediment to advancing the overall movement against psychiatric oppression.

    The main issue here is not opposing big “government intervention” and relying on “individual choice” to dictate the direction of our society on drug safety (and every other important issue). We must first evaluate who the government represents in society. In the current status quo they represent big corporations and the god of profit.

    If government truly existed as a political force “of the people, “by the people,” and “for the people” then it would not matter so much how big it was or if it made beneficial interventions in people’s lives.

    In fact, if government actually involved MORE of the citizens of our society in a governing role it would help guarantee the prevention of various forms of tyranny.

    I’m afraid that, unless and until we have a political movement and a resulting government NOT run by corporate interests AND willing to prosecute and jail people who knowingly harm people for their own personal gain, none of these problems with benzos and opiates (and all other psychiatric drugs) stands a chance of going away.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • bcharris

    I am not knowledgeable about some of the supplements you are referencing. However, you are quite correct to say that there are many other interventions for excessive anxiety that do not involve psychiatric drugs. And these non drug interventions are (in the long run) much more effective and do not carry with them all the inherent dangers of the drugs.

    People need to find out the source of their anxiety. What conflicts with their environment are creating this anxiety and what physical interventions (such as diet, meditation, exercise etc) and psychological interventions (such as changing thought patterns and related behaviors etc) need to be made over time to manage their discomfort.

    When psychiatric drugs are used this usually stops a person from actually seeking out and learning and using the mental and physical skills necessary to solve their problems. Dependency on the psych drugs will become an inevitable result.; problems will usually get worse as a consequence.

    Addiction problems, especially involving opiates, will obviously cause major anxiety in a person’s life. Unfortunately contact with Psychiatry and medicine will almost always lead to a diagnosis of an anxiety “disorder” and ultimately to a prescription of benzos. Now a person’s addiction problem will become exponentially worse over time; death always lurks very close by for these people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Drt

    You have a powerful story and I hope you continue write about it.

    While the focus of my blog is about the deaths caused by combining benzos with opiate (and how this is not fully recognized and/or covered up) your narrative is about a slow “death” that many victims of benzos suffer in protracted withdrawal.

    Your insights and knowledge will serve you well when combined with other forms of recovery resources (support groups, diet, and exercise etc.). I have no doubt that you will eventually make it through this. Always good to hear from you at MIA.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • yeah_I_survived

    You make a lot of sense and have provided a good history lesson regarding how long it has taken in the past to get safe regulations for very harmful drugs.

    If Psychiatry and the FDA had even one ounce of morality when it comes to benzos they would do the following:

    1) Send out immediate warnings regarding the dangers of prescribing these drugs beyond two weeks, or ever at all outside of a non-oppressive controlled medical environment. Dedicate millions of dollars to educational campaigns related to the dangers of these drugs and designate millions to provide research and direct aid to the millions of people attempting to safely engage in protracted withdrawal from benzo dependency.

    2) Renounce the past approval of these drugs as a “treatment” for anxiety problems and apologize to the American people (and beyond) for all the deaths and harms they have caused.

    3) Initiate a criminal investigation into the role of certain leaders of Big Pharma and Psychiatry who are guilty of fraud and criminal negligence in their campaigns for FDA approval ultimately leading to thousands of deaths.

    Of course this would be akin to asking a fox to watch over the chicken coop or expecting Dracula to suddenly start sucking water instead of blood. You get the drift of my cynicism and may understand my dreams of the need for Revolutionary change happening in our future.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • j123

    I am sorry to hear about your difficulties. I have a close friend who is receiving positive help for benzo withdrawal (and from other psych drugs) from the Point of Return group and Dr. Armstrong mentioned in the other blog on the benzo bill in Texas.

    My research and understanding tells me that benzo withdrawal is a protracted process with many ups and downs but it can be successful in the end. I do believe in brain neuroplasticity which means that healing can occur over time.

    Also, check out Monica Cassani’s website Beyond Meds for great resource information and positive stories of recovery.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • icpoems

    Actually it was Heath Ledger’s father who blamed his son for his overdose death.

    Big Pharma, the FDA, and Psychiatry has kept the broad public in the dark and mislead people about the nature of dependency and addiction problems. If people knew the truth about the role of these these institutions in prescription drug abuse they would quickly would become a target of the masses wrath. I hope to live long enough to see that day.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bramble

    You are right on several counts. Despite all the official warnings issued in Britain about benzos, they still have an enormous problem. This problem will require major systemic changes; institutions and their leaders will have to fall before we have true drug safety and justice for the victims of prescription drug abuses.

    And yes, benzodiazepines are also associated with more fractures and falls, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and higher mortality rates. Outside of a controlled medical setting these are some of the most dangerous drugs on the planet.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Mike

    Most people who become dependent on benzos ARE taking them as prescribed. The horrors of this dependency has been written about many times at MIA.

    Opiate drugs are massively over prescribed. Most people who develop a dependency on opiates, either legal or illegal, will develop various forms of excessive anxiety and then commonly be given a diagnosis for an anxiety “disorder. Of course, the “mental health” industry will then frequently prescribe benzos to “treat” the anxiety. These prescription will often become long term.

    Now we have the preconditions for a “perfect storm” of dependency and/or addiction that too often leads to fatal overdoses. These are the material conditions that have been a driving force behind the opiate overdose crisis. Most people learn how to take opiates but they often forget about the levels of benzos in their body and this deadly mix will shut down heart and lung function.

    And Obama wants to INCREASE the number of people given synthetic opiates (suboxone and methadone) without addressing the benzo problem – a disaster waiting to happen!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    Thanks for the positive feedback.

    I actually started this blog right after I heard about Prince’s death. I speculated right from the very second the news came out about his overdose that somehow we would eventually find out that benzos were involved.

    My first draft only contained some speculation about Prince’s death which has now been verified in an AP article that came out yesterday. However, “the powers that be” ONLY want to focus on FENTANYL and Mexican drug cartels or rogue Chinese factories shipping fentanyl to this country as a diversion from the main culprits that are right in our own backyard. Nobody has been willing to expose and target Big Pharma, Psychiatry and the FDA for their central (and complicit) role in the opiate overdose epidemic.

    I have been writing about the central role of benzos in the opiate overdose crisis for several years now and very few people have listened. I have approached multiple media people and not one has agreed to deeply investigate this story.

    The clues to the role of benzos in this epidemic are right in front of people’s eyes. I hope this blog helps to uncover more of the truth and serves as some type of wake up call for those who are oblivious to this problem or want to become more active in ending prescription drug abuse.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Catherine and Jan

    First I want to give high praise for this incredibly well researched paper connecting violence and suicide to psychiatric drugs.

    I have a few comments and suggestions:

    1) It might be helpful to write a very condensed version of this paper and its conclusions that would be more accessible to lay people and the broader public.

    2) Within this paper you have alternated between using the terms “medications” and “psychiatric drugs.” To continue using the term “medications” to describe psychiatric drugs is both an unscientific and unnecessary concession made to Big Pharma and Biological Psychiatry. There is no scientific basis or need to call these drugs “medications” since they are “treating” no verifiable disease processes in the human body or condition. To confuse these terms (or somehow believe we must use them because everyone else does) is essentially to concede a major scientifically incorrect and historically backward political stance. This is no different than calling excessive anxiety, depression, or bizarre thoughts “diseases” and accepting the legitimacy of all the diagnoses in the DSM 5. This confusion over the use of the term “medications” and “psychiatric drugs” will NOT stop unless WE MAKE IT STOP by highlighting this crucial difference in accuracy of scientific terms.

    3) In the text you state the following:
    “Yet the drugs can be effective in persons suffering serious and severe depression, provided their doses are adjusted according to their ability to metabolize them normally and there is informed monitoring.”

    There is NO scientific basis to conclude at this point in our understanding of how SSRI’s metabolize in humans that some people BENEFIT from these drugs based on their ability to process the drugs. Or that those people who allegedly have difficulty metabolizing these drugs are somehow MORE prone to violence. This is only a speculative theory at this time. Yes, it may be true that there are human variations in a person’s ability to metabolize these drugs but it HAS NOT been proven that someone who can better metabolize these drugs achieves a BETTER RESULT with their depression or is somehow LESS prone to violence. There is a danger in conceding these scientific points without verifiable proof.

    We must be aware that Biological Psychiatry in its efforts to salvage its legitimacy in the face of recent critical analyses is trying to shift more emphasis to genetic testing to determine which people will ALLEGEDLY benefit from this or that psychiatric drug. We SHOULD NOT concede the legitimacy of this endeavor or give credibility to spending millions of dollars to pursue more scientific investigation into “genetic theories of original sin.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Thanks Beatrice for the response and your openness to this discussion of terminology.

    You might want to check out a prior blog I wrote about my visit to the Redwall Garden in Scotland (www.madinamerica.com/2013/09/mad-america-meets-mad-scotland/) for it mirrors some of the important work you are doing. I believe connecting with the land and nature can be very therapeutic and healing. I am sure the people working in this program would love to share communication on your program.

    BTW, I have daughters that live in Hartland Vermont, so perhaps sometime in the future I could stop in for a visit. I do have have a lot of experience dealing with addiction issues (you can read my blogs at MIA on the subject) and might be willing to donate some time for educational purposes if your program was open to a group discussion on addiction and recovery.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • Beatrice

    This was a great blog about a great program. I have enormous respect for your work and for your dedication to these people in desperate need of non oppressive supports.

    One important point of feedback which I hope you are open to. In this blog you must have used the term “medications” possibly 25 times. Many people do not believe it is scientifically correct to call psychiatric drugs “medications” and that by using this term you are perpetuating the myths of brain “diseases” promoted by Biological Psychiatry and their oppressive medical model.

    This is NOT just a matter of semantics. Think how the term “medications” impacts the very people you are trying to help. Part of their individual struggle to heal is to cast off the belief (imposed on them by the System) that they have some type of brain “disease” or genetic defect that is causing all their distress, as opposed to looking at their specific conflict with their environment.

    Use of the term “psychiatric drugs” is not only more scientifically accurate but it is directly challenging everything that is wrong with the medical model. This seemingly small shift in use of terms (if explained to your program participants) could have a positive therapeutic effect over time. It will also challenge the broader public and those working in the System who come into contact with your program.

    Your program by its very existence is a political statement challenging the System and so too is the specific language you use to describe it and how it works on a day to day basis. This description can have an important influence on all those negatively affected by the current “mental health” system.

    Psychiatric drugs are mind altering substances NOT “medications.” Sometimes mind altering substance may play a useful role for humans especially on a short time basis. This is especially true when trying to slowly taper from their use after having been on these drugs for many years.

    This issue related to the use of the terminology psychiatric drugs vs. “medications” is just as important of a political distinction as any debate over terms used to describe people of color, gender differences etc. or the debate over Black Lives Matter vs. “All Lives Matter.”

    Keep up the great work. I hope you find this dialogue helpful.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • AA

    I completely understand your point. All of medicine must reject the diseased/drug/based medical model for all that gets labeled as so-called “mental illness.”

    My suggestion regarding neurology was just to compare and contrast the fact that neurology has a real basis in science where the medical problems they are addressing in the brain have a cellular basis with a provable progression of some sort of pathology; psychiatry has none of this.

    Notice I said if psychiatrists switch to “neurology” they must do so “leaving all their junk science and religiosity behind.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Aimee

    I also know a few wonderful psychiatrists and have read great writings by them as well. But this tiny minority are NOT doing what psychiatry is all about in today’s world. They may have the degree but they are doing something very different and antithetical to the medical model.

    If all psychiatric diagnoses have no credible basis when viewed scientifically then there is no basis for Psychiatry to exist as a medical specialty. They should either become some type of therapist, or somehow.transition into neurology leaving all their junk science and religiosity behind.

    For the next several decades all well meaning psychiatrists should be focused on the following two main tasks:

    1) Devote all their time to raising havoc within their field by exposing psychiatry’s fraudulent foundation while thoroughly deconstructing the medical model. Also help those people incarcerated by this oppressive system obtain their freedom.

    2) Deeply study the science of psychiatric drug withdrawal protocols and help the millions of drug victims find ways to reduce their dependency and/or taper completely off of these toxic substances.

    When these tasks are completed and this type of understanding is promoted throughout society Psychiatry will no longer have respect in society and/or reason to exist. It will then be viewed as something akin to astrology.

    People will then have no reason to seek out Psychiatry anymore and it will simply wither away and join other oppressive institutions that came before it in the “Dustbin of History,” and the world will be much better off for this result.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Aimee

    What a beautifully written story of a man who shows immense resilience in face of such an oppressive psychiatric system.

    In so-called democratic countries that profess to have some version of a Constitution and/or Bill of Rights it is almost unfathomable that Psychiatry can be granted such enormous power to take away someone’s freedom based on junk science and mythical “diseases.”

    The very mind altering psychiatric drugs that they claim can cure these mythical brain “diseases” are themselves often the decisive causative factor in unusual or sometimes violent behavior that pulls people back into the sinister clutches of Psychiatry.

    Stories such as these cry out for Psychiatry’s ultimate abolition from this planet. Why would one even consider reforming such an institution?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Kenneth

    I really appreciate your articles and your willingness to explore the “drug” vs. “medication” issue as to the correct usage given the dominance of the medical model in today’s “mental health” system.

    I wish to disagree with your main point in response to BPDT. I don’t believe that some type of fully “informed consent” suddenly makes the word “medication” appropriate to use referring to the administration or use of psych drugs, or that “to drug” someone or oneself is necessarily a bad thing as you implied.

    Mind altering drugs can serve a useful purpose in some medical and/or personal situations. Drugging a patient in excruciating pain may be necessary and helpful and may occur without their consent.

    Having a drink or joint at the end of a hard day may serve some people well or may even temporarily help them navigate the aftermath of traumatic experiences. Yes, we know that an extended period of use may result in problems in some people, but there is nothing inherently wrong with consuming a mind altering drug.

    “Medications” are understood and defined in medicine and science as treating some type of cellular “disease process.” Thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that get labeled as psychiatric disorders ARE NOT diseases. Therefore the word “medication” SHOULD NOT be used to describe the psych drugs used to “treat” these type of so-called “symptoms.”

    It is vitally important to make this distinction precisely because we are locked in a life and death struggle to overcome and defeat the dominance of the diseased/drug based medical model which is destroying lives everyday.

    All this makes the “medication” vs. “drug” discussion a very important dividing line question in today’s world. This is no different than the sharp debate over “Black Lives Matter” vs. All Lives Matter.” I hope you can appreciate the importance of getting clear on this question.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    I just want to say that you’ve done a great job taking on the Globe and helping organize a very successful demonstration taking on these very real human rights issues.

    Kudos to all those who participated and to those people willing to get arrested for the cause.

    I definitely would have joined in if I hadn’t had an important prior commitment. Keep us posted as this struggle continues.

    In Solidarity, Richard

    Report comment

  • Scientology is a dangerous cult pretending to be a religion. It has used its criticisms of Psychiatry and today’s oppressive “mental health” system as an important recruiting tool to expand its ranks and funding base.

    Psychiatry is a dangerous religion pretending to be a science. The two entities are merely flip sides of the same backward and reactionary coin.

    Scientology and Psychiatry are both desperately competing to recruit from the same base of people. People who are desperately searching for answers and solutions to their own alienation in a difficult and often traumatic world.

    Buyer Beware!!!

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You said: “Who has ever denied this and why is it so important to keep repeating? Is anyone being hounded to stop taking their drugs?”

    No (you are right) I don’t think anyone has been hounded or directly criticized or somehow declared unfit for the movement because they are taking psych drugs.

    But you must admit that MIA has featured many stories about survivor’s long arduous journeys getting off of psych drugs. Commenters have often offered support, advice, and great praise to those who have been successful in this journey.

    This support and praise is a good thing but there may be a perceived or “implied” message in these numerous survivor stories and the various responses of the readers.

    For those people who may have tried and failed in this endeavor to become totally abstinent, or don’t wish to go all the way with total withdrawal (for a multitude of different reasons) we have to recognize that they may subjectively feel “less than” or not as strong as those who have succeeded in going all the way.

    I am not suggesting they should, or need to feel this way. Obviously from my prior comment I am suggesting just the opposite. I’m just trying to look at an underlying psychological dynamic that may be in play in these type of discussions surrounding the delicate (and sometimes desperate) issues related to the type of compromises people have to make taking psychiatric drugs in today’s world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bruce, excellent blog.

    Partial response to Oldhead regarding the “drug” issue: all the drugs discussed here (including both psych drugs and pot, alcohol, and nicotine etc.) are “mind altering” in some way.

    Of course we will continue to expose the dangers of psych drugs and the crimes committed by both Psychiatry and Big Pharma using fraudulent means to get these drugs approved for legal distribution and then conducting billion dollar campaigns to get millions of people worldwide to take them.

    Now that millions have adapted to living with some of these drugs (or become in some way dependent on taking them) it will take decades (even if we somehow were able to eliminate Psychiatry tomorrow) to help society become less dependent or reliant on using them.

    The meaning I read into Bruce Levine’s words are as follows:
    we must firmly declare that ALL people willing to oppose the crimes of the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex are welcome in our movement regardless of what drugs they find it necessary to use to function in this stress filled and trauma laden world.

    No can tell someone else what is the best way to cope with the madness and insanity of this oppressive system we live within , And there should be NO hierarchy or shame within our movement based on whether or not some people still use Psych drugs or others who may have been able to achieve some type of independence from needing or using these drugs at this time.

    On Scientology: It is NOT just a question of being falsely labeled a Scientologist because of our criticisms of Psychiatry and the “mental health” system. It is the serious problems related to working with people who are part of a dangerous cult. A cult that has harmed thousands of its members and is extremely wealthy and well positioned to use its money and power to recruit new members, take over, control, and/or otherwise negatively influence the development of our movement.

    Both Peter Breggin and Robert Whitaker have been very smart to steer clear of Scientology, and we should learn from their example.

    And finally, on the basis of unity between Psych survivors and other system dissidents. Bruce brought up the following important point:
    “Many members of the Rehumanizing Resistance—including both ex-patients and dissident professionals— have been traumatized by First-Order Psychiatry, through its labeling and coercive “treatment” or through its humiliating “training” and professionalization. Both ex-patients and dissident professionals have been discounted, invalidated, and not taken seriously.

    I would add that part of the trauma that dissidents experience from this system is bearing direct witness to the daily harm done by coercive forms of “treatment” and the lack of “informed consent” related to the massive amount of psych drugging that disables people from being able to solve the very family/emotional/trauma issues that first brings them to seek help from this oppressive system.

    Many of us have watched people die or have their lives destroyed by this system and it takes its toll on our humanity.I would never EVER want to compare the degree of trauma from being a potential dissident observer working in and around this system to the actual victims harmed by Biological Psychiatry and the medical model. But any open minded professional who has a heart and a critical spirit of human compassion is also damaged in many ways by this system. Some are not yet even aware of this damage at the present time.

    And Bruce, thank you for clearly posing the real dangers in “negotiating” with the System and making “reform” the central focus of our struggle.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Nomadic

    Thanks for the positive feedback on my analysis of “genetic theories of original sin.”

    You may want to be careful about too much praise for my words for I still make a living as a part time therapist. I worked for over 22 years in community mental health as dissident therapist opposing the takeover by Biological Psychiatry.

    I have read some of your criticisms of therapy/therapists and while they contain many truths I believe they represent a one sided analysis. I have been a writer at MIA for several years and all my blogs (including one on CBT therapy) can be reviewed by you, so you can make a more complete evaluation as to whether or not my viewpoint warrants further praise and/or criticism.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Wayne

    Trust me that I wanted to unconditionally praise your blog and pass it on to other people without reservation, but I can’t get passed that sentence containing the phrase ,b>”a true biomarker or mental illness gene” out of my head.

    Your use of the term “mental illness” was NOT placed in quotes which means you are giving it some sort of scientific legitimacy. I would ask you, where is the proof of the existence of “mental illness?” If “mental illness” cannot be proven to exist then therefore common logic would tell us there can be No such thing as the existence of a “mental illness gene.” Talking about “psychological distress” or “psychological disturbances” vs. “mental illness” are two VERY DIFFERENT concepts. One can be proven, the other cannot.

    And were you implying that anything I said was “absolutist” for you mentioned that you are leery of such positions.

    And I have an issue with your response that mentioned “some of the differences have to do w/rhetoric vs more science based dialogues.” Are you saying or implying that my comment contained “rhetoric” as opposed to real science? And if so, what part was rhetoric?

    And I was not sure what you meant by phrase ” …if the many causes of mental disturbances and distress were ever actually ever honestly investigated, it would probably reveal incredible heterogeneity…”

    And lastly you said: “With the profit driven corruption of science, we may never know.” I would answer that comment by saying: who says that there will always be “profit driven… science”?

    Since the profit system stands as a huge impediment to the progress of all scientific endeavors and medicine overall (as well as every other important societal institution) it is in our best interests to move humanity beyond a profit system.

    And when we do move beyond a profit system dominating society and science we definitely will be able to discover and know a lot more about the world, and especially how to support people suffering from extreme.psychological distress.

    Is this just more “rhetoric” on my part, or can these things actually be proven by carefully examining what is wrong with the way society is currently organized?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Stephen

    You make some very good points. The Black population has been hit especially hard by Biological Psychiatry.

    It is common knowledge among those in the know that drugs like heroin became readily available in urban ghettos when Black rebellions erupted during the 1960’s. It is not a stretch to make comparisons with today’s high rate of psych drugging among oppressed minorities.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ragnarok

    I agree with your broader analysis. Thank you for expanding and deepening these important political points. I have been arguing for this kind of viewpoint for many years here at MIA.

    You said “The oppression of psychiatry is by design, used by the wider system of oppression to quell dissent and to incapacitate as many people as possible so there are fewer people who aren’t brain damaged that can figure out how psychotic the entire system and people who run it really are.”

    The “design” word must be further explained so as to not devolve into conspiracy theories devoid of an actual material analysis of how things developed in the real world. I don’t believe there was a grand scheme concocted 40 years ago by Psychiatry and other institutions of authority to come up with a “medication/drug revolution” to control the masses.

    I believe it was more of an alliance between Big Pharma to expand its profits and markets AND Psychiatry to provide itself with a scientific/medical veneer in order to advance its guild interests which had been severely discredited and weakened in the 1960’s.

    Once their massive campaigns to advance DSM diagnoses and their related psych drugging took hold on such a grand scale, they (a long with other institutions of power such as governmental forces, police, and prison authorities) began to understand the important role the disease/drug based medical model could play in maintaining and enforcing the status quo.

    Psychiatry and the “mental health” system have become so powerful, and such an integral part of the entire capitalist/profit system, that their future existence together is now inseparably bound. Their demise is equally bound up in our hope and desire for the joining of multiple human rights struggles into a broad revolutionary movement that can radically transform the world.

    Just as the environmental movement to save the planet from human destruction requires a radical transformation of the way we produce and distribute goods on an international scale, so does the way society supports those people suffering from extreme forms of psychological distress require the SAME kind of revolutionary change.

    Correctly understanding the interplay of a trauma based environment with the human genome is critical to advancing our efforts to create a more humane world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Wayne

    Overall, this was an excellent article. However, one of your last sentences weakened the power of your argument and gives up unnecessary ground to the biological determinists who dominate Psychiatry and the “mental health” system.

    You said “Perhaps, one day, after many more billions of dollars in myopic research, a true biomarker or mental illness gene will be identified. (The dispassionate scientist in me, allows that it is possible).”

    The dispassionate scientist in you should, on the contrary, know more than enough at this time to not even remotely encourage this possibility, and also be ridiculing ANY efforts to pursue these bogus searches for Biological Psychiatry’s “genetic Holy Grail.”

    Even if we say it is within the realm of scientific possibility for there to be some type of genetic predisposition for a less hearty human response to severe environmental stressors, this would not be (nor could it be) the discovery of a single gene. It could only be multiple sets or grouping of genes, and, of necessity, require “ENVIRONMENTAL TRIGGERS” to set off any biological processes that in some way could remotely influence thought formation and/or behavior.

    Without emphasizing the role of “environment triggers” none of this discussion about the role of human genetics makes any sense. And even IF some aspect of genetic predisposition (relative to the multiple sets of gene interaction) were discovered this would represent a tragic waist of time spent for scientific endeavor and for the allocation of human financial resources.

    Would a truly humane society, based on the highest degree of morality and scientific discovery, focus on tinkering with multiple sets of genes in the human genome (in these cases) OR focus on doing everything possible to radically transform the forms of social organization and production in such a way as to minimize (and eventually eliminate) all forms of human exploitation, violence, and other related forms of trauma? These represent the sources of the various form of human stressors and related behaviors that end up leading to disease/based labels and the massive amount of drugging by modern Psychiatry and organized medicine.

    All these “genetic theories of original sin” are a diversion away from focusing on all the oppressive forms of social organization and institutional control that form the present backdrop for the current “mental health system.” Let’s not give the “powers that be” one iota of room to move on these vital questions of emphasis.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    Thanks for those words and the history lesson.

    As to the degree of difficulty of our struggles working on the “inside,” my 22 years as a senior clinician gave me more room to function as a rebel and made it more difficult for them to play psychological games and to fire me outright.

    Many years prior to 2015 I did experience some paranoid feelings numerous times when certain psychiatrists were complaining about my beliefs and actions with some clients. I know how uncomfortable this can be when you are trying to take the moral high road and stand up for the clients as a lone voice in a sea of backward conformity.

    Psychologically I was much more prepared for the struggle in the recent period because I clearly was nearing the end of my career in community mental health. I felt a moral obligation to push the limits given some of my accumulated knowledge and freedom to operate in that environment.

    In the state of Massachusetts there is a Healthcare Worker Protection Act that is suppose to protect whistle blowers. I could have used this law as a way to sue the clinic if they had chosen to fire me. I was fully prepared to take that road if necessary and had carefully gone through appropriate channels to cover my bases preparing for the worst outcome.

    Trust me, your conditions of struggle were more severe. You may not even be aware of how much moral consternation and dissonance you have created for all those people working at all levels at your workplace. The few examples of latent support you described may be the tip of the iceberg. And as the truth of your political stance become more apparent in the coming years this moral dissonance may only grow as time goes on.

    And most important of all, those clients for whom you believed in and took great risks to give them hope and dignity in the face of such an oppressive mental health system, they will have benefited from your courageous work to build personal resilience.

    Struggle On, Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    Great blog. And I very much admire the important work you carried out at your job under very difficult circumstances.

    I worked for 22 years in community mental health (I resigned in protest in Sept. of 2015), and during those years I waged an on going struggle against the complete takeover by Biological Psychiatry and the medical model. I know how difficult it is to work in this kind of environment while trying to resist the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial Complex. It truly can be a crazy-making experience.

    You can read my blog summarizing my last two years attempting to be a whistle blower (here)www.madinamerica.com/2015/12/deafening-silence-what-happens-when-a-whistle-blows-and-nobody-hears

    Under these work conditions you know that you could be fired at any moment. I was prepared for this in many ways, including financially, but it still was very stressful. And I believe I had it much easier than you did because they adopted more of an “let’s ignore this person approach.” I was not subjected to the backhanded and covert efforts you describe that forced you out of your job.

    You have a important story and you tell it well. Stay strong, for you are a powerful creative agent of change. Like Oldhead mentioned, I hope you become more active in the anti-psychiatry movement as part of a much larger human rights/anti-capitalist struggle.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Keep in mind that Dr. Gotzshe, who was quoted above, also calls the collusion between Big Pharma and Psychiatry a form of “organized crime.”

    You don’t believe that enough documented evidence has accumulated over the last few decades for those criminal elements in the leadership of the APA and the pharmaceutical industry to NOW know that there is great harm being caused by SSRI’s, benzos, and neuroleptic drugs etc.?

    With all their profits and its related power, do you believe these institutional leaders will somehow now admit that serious mistakes were made and start educating the public that the “chemical imbalance” theory is a myth and urge doctors and patients to turn away from all these drugs?

    Hell will freeze over before this happens.

    Suppose those white people in the WEST who gifted Native Americans new blankets infected with small pox did NOT know (at first) they were infected in this way. But then LATER ON found out this was the case but still kept giving them the infected blankets. Are they still guilty of genocide???

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    As an added point to my above argument about the rightful use of the “holocaust” analogy, did you miss the following quote in Dr. Brogan’s blog?:

    “From 1999-2013, psychiatric medication prescriptions have increased by a whopping 117% concurrent with a 240% increase in death rates from these medications.[17] No wonder Dr. Gotzsche counts psychiatric medications as the third leading cause of death, worldwide[18].”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    No I can’t say for SURE that Zoloft, or any other drug I am not aware of that she was taking, is THE causative agent in this tragedy. But the increasing CORRELATION type evidence (worldwide) is compounding by the day.

    Unfortunately, confidentiality laws and the lack of drug knowledge and the overwhelming desire of family members to want to move on with their lives, will lead to the issue of psych drug involvement ending up being hidden from public view and NEVER investigated.

    Back in 1991, after reading Dr. Peter Breggin and a few other sources, I wrote my Masters thesis on the growing dangers of psychiatric drugs. In that thesis I compared the expanding psych drug crisis to the AIDS crisis. For several years after I thought I might have gone “over the top” with my analogy.

    Today I believe the AIDS analogy, as well as the use of the term, “holocaust,” is quite accurate and applicable to the pervasive damage done by psychiatric drugs on a world scale. We cannot afford to minimize the nature of this medical and societal crisis. I think you should reconsider your opposition to the use of this term.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Knowledgeispower

    Good comment. But shouldn’t we stop calling psych drugs “medications” as if they are treating a specific disease or medical disorder!? To call them “medications” is to accept part of Biological Psychiatry’s bogus science that advocates for their prolific use in our society. These are mind altering drugs – nothing more and nothing less. And more and more often they are very dangerous mind altering drugs.

    As we speak I have a friend who is on life support for a possible suicide attempt. Nothing I’m aware of in this person’s life would remotely explain any suicidal behavior other than being on the SSRI, Zoloft, for the past few years.

    I am sickened and angry beyond words. The very things in today’s “mental health” system that I have been writing about and passionately fighting against for the past 20 years are increasingly hitting closer to home with both friends and family members. I know I am not alone.

    Thank you Kelly for standing up and speaking out against this drug holocaust. We all must find the ways to increase our exposure and activism against the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Oldhead

    Thanks for chiming in. A few points of clarification and rebuttal.

    You said: “I see no contradiction btw in empathizing or even “loving” one’s enemy as an individual, as the ultimate enemy is a system embodied in individuals for whom we may have some sympathy.”

    I have no problem with understanding and accepting the possibility that very bad acting human beings can change, or that there can be forgiveness (not in the religious sense) and future reconciliation.

    But until the material conditions for those conditions exists in the world, the idea or actions (in a class based society) of”loving thy enemy” is both disarming and harmful to all oppressed people and will NOT help them achieve liberation.

    The idea that a woman in the act of being raped should “love” her rapist or have “room in her heart” for this perpetrator is absurd and disarming, especially since she might have to consider a way of physically harming this person or even killing him in order to survive or get away.

    The idea that a person forced against their will into a psychiatric facility and given the order by a psychiatrist to be stripped and strapped to a gurney and forceably drugged with powerful neuroleptics should somehow “love their enemy,” is once again absurd.

    In both of these instances, again it might be possible at some future date for there to be a meaningful apology, forgiveness, and some form of reconciliation? Yes, of course this is possible, but not usually the case and certainly not necessary for those oppressed in these situations to move forward with their lives. And certainly not necessary to build a political movement against these forms of oppression.

    Both anger and hatred towards oppression, and the oppressor, are historically necessary and important forces for political change. Now revenge, on the other hand, can lead people in bad directions and cause them (or their movement) to lose sight of their lofty goals, and (in some cases) take on certain aspects of their enemy. This will not help move history forward.

    You said: “Everyone has a potentially positive role if their personal motivation comes from a place of integrity,…”

    Of course we don’t all carry around a “sincereometer” to measure a person’s motivation or personal integrity. But we can evaluate a particular historical figure’s social role in society and gauge the amount of harm or human degradation they are causing in the world.

    Of course there are some very wealthy people in the world whose actual “social role” (despite their being in the 1% or 5%) is directed towards helping people overcome adversity rather than oppressing people. They certainly should be evaluated in a very different way and definitely not subjected to hatred.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • While I appreciate David Oaks’ spirited attempts to create new forms of activism, I’m afraid that without being clear on our terms (like Revolution) and also carefully summing up past attempts at radical change, we will be doomed to follow a path into more reformism and other political dead ends.

    Oldhead posted a most important comment: “At this point in history if one talks about revolution and means something other than the replacement of capitalist rule by that of the people (or the 1% by the 99%) it should be made clear; otherwise we risk slipping into liberalism and reformism.”

    How can “Revolution” mean anything of substance if names like Eisenhower, Pope Francis, MLK, and Bernie Sanders are all thrown into the mix as icons of leadership and/or bastions of political theory for radical change.

    Eisenhower’s leadership on D-Day represented the replacement of the United States (from Britain) as the number one Imperialist power in the world as their Marshal Plan and WWII treaties were about to carve up the world and consolidate the basis for a rapid post war expansion of U.S. economic growth and political dominance.

    Pope Francis’s desperate attempts to stop the falling attendance and the overall decline of Catholicism has made a few comments that has only moved Catholic doctrine a few centimeters out of the Dark Ages. Should we praise or celebrate this?

    MLK at a certain point became useful to the U.S. ruling class who desperately feared the growing popularity of Malcolm X and the Black Panther party’s influence over millions of young Blacks and other young people in this country. The rich and powerful were forced to work with MLK in order to keep the Civil Rights Movement contained within the bounds of acceptable forms of political reformism. Even with all these reformist limitations he still became a liability to the system, and some sections of the ruling class who wanted him removed found the ways to create conditions for that to take place.

    Bernie Sanders so-called “Revolution” is promoting the illusion of some type of “hybrid” form of limited state ownership, while retaining the essence of Capitalism and its related (non) democratic structures. This does NOT represent overall political progress. He has served an important function to the status quo by drawing into the political arena millions of disaffected American who will now once again go to the polls and vote for “the lesser of two evils” while all the while holding their noses.

    Frank said it right when he stated that this must be “a Revolution against the mental health system.” And we must be clear that it is a class based/profit system that has given rise to modern Psychiatry and maintains an oppressive “mental health” system. And as long as this economic and political System still exists there will be NO fundamental progress for those people seeking help for psychological distress.

    The so-called “creatively maladjusted” and other rebellious malcontents in our society are being disease labeled, incarcerated, and drugged into submission and subservience as one way to prevent the growth and consolidation of a new generation of radical activists. This is ultimately doomed to fail (IF we do our work); for “where there is oppression their will always be resistance.”

    David stated: “That means that we work with each other in as full community as we can, and that we hold our “enemies” in our hearts even as we call them out…”

    As long as there are RULING CLASSES that dominate, subjugate and severely oppress the UNDER CLASSES, any admonitions for us to “love thy enemy” or “hold [them] “in our hearts” only serves to disarm the masses and prevents us from having clear lines of demarcation between “friends” and “enemies.” We must become MORE class conscious not LESS; there can be NO room “in our hearts” for our enemies. It is difficult enough to figure out who our friends are let alone leave any space for our enemies.

    Yes, we must do everything in our power to avoid becoming like our “enemies” or adopting any of their forms of inhumanity to man,” even in times of war. But to promote a view that we should “love them” is very harmful to people and WILL NOT lead toward fundamentally changing the world to a better place.

    How would loving Max Fink, Joseph Biederman, Donald Rumsfeld, Donald Trump etc. advance our cause in any way at this stage in human history? More and more people must learn to “hate” these people in a deeper philosophical and political way in order to be moved into greater political activism.

    I love David Oaks and Mind Freedom for what he (and that organization) has meant for keeping alive the movement against psychiatric oppression through some very difficult years. But that does not mean that we can’t have some spirited and necessary disagreements and discussion about the strategic and tactical way forward.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    Since you couldn’t resist responding to Steve on this subject and because you leave little “doubt” where you stand on major issues (a trait for which I recently praised you) neither can I resist responding to a contentious issue where much “doubt” appears to exist as to what is or isn’t appropriate

    I hope someone does write a blog on this topic for if they do I will probably have a lot to say as I’m sure others will as well.

    You said: ” The appropriation of the word ‘slavery’ by white people, particularly in instances where they are being told by people of color that it is offensive and yet they still feel empowered to take ownership of it…

    I must point out that slavery existed long before the African slave trade and the institution of American slavery. In the very beginnings of its existence slavery was color blind.

    Going back to the earliest stages of human history with the transition from more primitive communal societies to the taking of slaves (as these groupings and tribes connected in hostile ways with competing groups in common territories) slavery developed as an alternative to killing perceived enemies.

    Slaves built the famous pyramids and we mustn’t forget that there was a class of slaves in the socieies that brought forth all the much touted and revered Greek and Roman enlightened philosophers and political theorists.

    And Karl Marx, who wrote extensively about the American Civil War (with a penetrating economic and political analysis) coined the term “wage slavery” to describe the relationship of the working classes in a capitalist society to the nature of the economic and political system. Workers who were no longer owned but now had to sell their labor power to the highest bidding capitalist in order to survive.

    While Marx was not equating “wage slavery” to the actual institution of slavery, he was still making it clear that it was just a higher form of slavery where working people were still not completely free if they had to sell part of their being to the propertied classes for their own survival.

    When discussing true freedom and where society must go in the future there is much to be learned from the writings of Marx and Engels.

    I must go at this time but I felt a compelling need to throw this into the mix.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Whether or not or exactly how much this is influenced by Scientology and/or 12 Step dogma does not negate the main point and overall value of this important expose’. This Moral Reconation Therapy MRT (that apparently is pervasive in the prison system) is a thoroughly reactionary and backward attempt to brainwash people in the prison system to believe that they alone are responsible for their position in life.

    This completely lets the status quo (a trauma filled, class based, profit system) off the hook and focuses people are their own “moral” failures as being the cause of their oppression. All programs like MRT should be exposed and opposed.

    Anyone interested in what is going on in the prisons and/or prison movement should read this article.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Sera

    Thanks for sharing with such intimate details some of the many ways in which trauma is inflicted upon women in this society and how that oppression is covered up and justified in our culture.

    Thanks for giving such a living example of how trauma can create insidious and disabling forms of personal “doubt.” To “doubt” one’s own judgement and interpretation of reality is very unsettling and heightens one’s anxiety by adding to a pervasive sense of “unpredictability” in one’s environment.

    You said: “I admire the woman who spoke out against Turner because she did something I did not do which is to speak out at all. But, perhaps more than anything, I admire her for speaking in a way that conveys so little doubt – in spite of all those who cast shadows around her.”

    If it is any consolation, one of the strengths of your writing is that you always seem to uncover and expose new layers of unrecognized forms of oppression in this society especially as it applies to sexism, racism, and psychiatric oppression. This leaves little “doubt” as to where you stand on these matters, and in my book, more than makes up for whatever you didn’t say in the past.

    Keep writing and speaking out in the way you do. You are helping ALL of us overcome personal self “doubt” by strengthening our ability to understand and interpret the world around us.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Noel

    Great blog, as usual.

    You ask “what would a trauma-informed society look like?”

    Such a society would (by my definition) be a one that understands the many systemic and institutional sources of trauma (such as class divisions and patriarchy) and would have made substantial efforts to eliminate the material conditions for the existence of this fertile ground.

    By this definition it would require the absolute elimination (over time) of the profit motive as a guiding economic principle and its related social organization.

    Therefore, I am making the observation that “capitalism and trauma-formed” is an oxymoron.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bruce, Frank, and Oldhead

    Bruce, thank you again for Part 2 of this blog dealing with issues of effective strategy and tactics for our movement. You have stimulated an interesting and important discussion.

    Thank you Frank and Oldhead for your persistence in making this particular comment section highly relevant to the topic at hand.

    In many ways you two have concentrated in your comments the various issues and debates (we all have in our own minds) regarding how to sum up the past and envision the future of our movement. You have been fearless in presenting your views and respectful in conducting a necessary and contentious discussion. I hope others who have not commented so far have also been closely following this important discussion.

    Oldhead, thanks for educating us about some past battles in the 70’s and 80’s that have not written about or summed up here at MIA, and for carrying forward your passion for launching a truely militant anti-psychiatry movement. I appreciated your willingness to present your polarizing perspective on the Fast for Freedom,and hunger strikes in general as a tactic, no one has been so forth right in making such a critique.

    Yes, your analysis of hunger strikes does give me pause about such tactics, but I felt the critique was overly harsh and dismissive of a creative attempt at challenging the system. Remember, I believe that Karl Marx was not supportive of the Paris Commune as a strategy (that he did not believe had a chance of winning) before it was launched, but once it began he gave it his full and unadulterated support to the end and then summed up its historical significance.

    Frank, you gave a good summation and defense of the Fast for Freedom. At the time it was the best thing going trying to undermine the credibility of Psychiatry and it should be supported despite any strategical or tactical shortcomings. If there were such a thing now I can’t say how I would respond. I do know that I get deeply frustrated and angry (and even desperate) that we have the science to back us up and a significant number of survivors and activists but no real activist movement, and unfortunately the “Cabaret” just continues on and on with new victims every day.

    In some ways I’m glad that there is not a bunch of haphazard groups or poorly organized actions because this could lead to deep frustration and burnout in a relatively short period of time. However, at the same time we should NOT be waiting for the PERFECT group to form or the ONE clever action or strategy that will somehow undermine the Beast and bring it down. This is NOT how movements grow and develop.

    Solid organization and creative action is desperately needed. And we all must be open to the role of spontaneity in the making of history. At any moment some particular event or small struggle somewhere could erupt that has the potential to be that “single spark” that could start the prairie fire. We must be able to recognize these events when they occur and see their full potential and make them grow.

    The drugging of children and adolescents, the benzo crisis, and the violence and suicides related to psych drugging and labeling (etc.) and the profit system that spawns such oppression, is all there waiting for our organization and action.

    I know there are other activists (old and young) who are reading this thread. Dare to participate and test your ideas and see if those ideas can become a creative agent of change.

    Thanks again to Bruce, Frank, and Oldhead.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • To Richard Lawhern and Johnna

    Thank you for your thoughtful and pointed responses to my 5 provocative and complex questions.

    This blog was published at the Mad in America website which focuses its writings and dialogue on a critical appraisal of modern psychiatry and the current “mental health system. Mr. Lawhern, there had to be some related reasons for you to have published this blog here and I am trying to draw out some of those connections.

    And to Johnna, when you challenge me by saying “why don’t you do something about it” regarding Psychiatry and their mass drugging and psychiatric labeling of people (including chronic Pain Patients – CPP): I want to respond by saying that I worked for 22 years in the community mental health system and have fought hard from the inside opposing the takeover by Biological Psychiatry. I am also a frequent writer here at MIA and have authored over a dozen blogs critical of disease based labeling and psych drugging.

    In fact I would say that psychiatric drugging has overwhelmingly replaced therapy as the standard of care in this system and it has been disastrous for millions of innocent people. I now have zero trust in Psychiatry and only believe a tiny percentage of psychiatrists can actually help people, and only those who reject the diseased/drug based approaches to care.

    So all the labeling that you refer to such as Bipolar Disorder, Depressive Disorders and Anxiety Disorders that frequently get attached to Chronic Pain Patients, I believe are fictitious and very harmful to people, especially the cocktails of Psych drugs that follow the label. Of course some of the feelings and behaviors that get labeled as “symptoms” are real, but I believe they are clearly a result of a person’s own conflict with their environment, and the related disabling effects of unresolved pain.

    To build off of your answers to my questions I would like to offer my own observations and speculation on these questions.

    I would venture to say that the vast majority of CPPs have been labeled (especially with Depressive and Anxiety “Disorders”) and given various cocktails of drugs. While these drugs may not have caused an actual increased sensitivity to pain I believe they would have certainly EXACERBATED these conditions and created a host of separate, and no less debilitating type problems, that would only compound the totality of disabling effects.

    Increasing evidence indicates that antidepressants are a causative factor in suicide and acts of violence against others (look more closely at the spate of mass shootings and their connection to psych drugging). These drugs can escalate depressive type feelings to a level of agitation that often provides enough energy and “edge” to that state of mind where suddenly suicide progresses from only thoughts to some type of decisive action. All of this must be seriously looked at when discussing and evaluating the high rate of suicide among CPPs. This is NOT meant to minimize the horrors of chronic pain by itself, but to look more carefully at ALL factors involved in these cases.

    For all these reasons, I believe as much anger and angst expressed against the medical establishment’s treatment of CPP’s for withdrawal of opiates (and targeting as “addicts”) should be directed towards Psychiatry and the “mental health’ system for all its labeling and dangerous psych drugging which compounds and escalates disability issues.

    While we may have some difference over the actual nature of the opioid crisis and the long term role of opiates as a standard of treatment for these problems, we actually have far more in common when it come to mounting mutual forms of opposition to psychiatric abuse. We can’t under estimate how much this could be a factor in CPP cases.

    That is all I have time to comment on at this time. Thanks again for your responses to my questions.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Johnna

    Again, I have NOT ever used the term “addict” to describe chronic pain patient nor do I support Dr Kessler. The FDA has acted like a criminal organization doing the bidding of Big Pharma for many years.

    I am Not in favor of denying chronic pain patients access to opiate drugs, especially those people who have been on them for years. For many of these people it may be far to late for any alternative forms of treatment to be successful due to a host of reasons.

    There can be no dialogue here if you continue to distort my position (and others in this discussion) on these matters.

    However, I would suggest that for first time patients with chronic pain problems there are far better alternatives than use of opiates. I believe that these drugs, similar to some categories of psychiatric drugs, can lead to internal processes that create the basis for increased sensitivity to pain and increased potential for long term physical and psychological disability. Does any one else here believe this may be possible?

    Lastly, why won’t people here address the five questions I raised earlier which I believe are very pertinent to this discussion? I will include them again below.

    1) What percentage of chronic pain patients have also been given some type of psychiatric diagnosis along with various cocktails of psychiatric drugs?

    2) What role has the use of psychiatric drugs, with all their negative side and “main” effects (and the use of psychiatric labeling in these cases) had in the progression of the chronic nature of protracted pain disability?

    3) Should the use of antidepressants in these cases be looked at as a causative factor in the high numbers of suicides?

    4) Should we call opioid dependency in some cases “iatrogenic dependency” as has been advocated for with benzodiazepine dependency?

    5) Are a certain percentage of chronic pain patients victims of “iatrogenic opioid dependency” (that is, medically induced and damaging dependency encouraged by Big Pharma and poor medical practices) which initiates a cascade of unforeseen medical and psychological deterioration in these patients – all of which leads people into the clutches of Biological Psychiatry and their brain disease/drug based paradigm of “treatment?”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To Richard Lawhern and others

    Stepping back for a moment from the contentious nature of this dialogue I would like to pose the following questions:

    1) What percentage of chronic pain patients have also been given some type of psychiatric diagnosis along with various cocktails of psychiatric drugs?

    2) What role has the use of psychiatric drugs, with all their negative side and “main” effects (and the use of psychiatric labeling in these cases) had in the progression of the chronic nature of protracted pain disability?

    3) Should the use of antidepressants in these cases be looked at as a causative factor in the high numbers of suicides?

    4) Should we call opioid dependency in some cases “iatrogenic dependency” as has been advocated for with benzodiazepine dependency?

    5) Are a certain percentage of chronic pain patients victims of “iatrogenic opioid dependency” (that is, medically induced and damaging dependency encouraged by Big Pharma and poor medical practices) which initiates a cascade of unforeseen medical and psychological deterioration in these patients – all of which leads people into the clutches of Biological Psychiatry and their brain disease/drug based paradigm of “treatment?”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Pam

    Neither myself nor others in this particular dialogue have EVER called chronic pain patients opiate “addicts.” We can agree that for many this is an issue of physical dependency and not addiction.. In this respect the situation is very similar to how benzodiazepines have been prescribed in this country and the resulting dependency issues that are facing millions of people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To advocate for compassionate care for people who have chronic pain issues and have been on opiate drugs for years should not mean that people at the same time need to deny that there is a major problem with excessive opiate prescribing in this country. These are dual problems that require complex solutions.

    Just as with benzodiazepines, people who have become dependent on opiate drugs for whatever reason (and especially for chronic pain) SHOULD NOT be punished or ripped off their drugs. This needs to be a safely negotiated dialogue between doctor and patient.

    The medical establishment must take responsibility for its decades of prolific prescribing of this category of drug. Neither THEY nor WE should blame the victims of these practices. Organized medicine must develop a safe and deliberate way to resolve this crisis and it may take many years (or decades) of concentrated efforts. The first step for any type of restrictive prescribing may have to focus on people who have never been prescribed this category of drug for any extensive period of time.

    And another matter for investigation, perhaps the high rates of suicide among chronic pain victims could be related to the negative side effects of antidepressant drugs that also seemed to be highly prescribed to these patients.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Mr. Lawhern

    You have not responded directly to any of the major points I’ve made in prior comments.

    Moving on…in the above comment you said: “…there are an estimated 100 million chronic pain patients in the US alone. Among these people, a minority are prescribed opioid medications to manage their pain. Such prescriptions are almost always a last resort in chronic pain — even though they are routinely prescribed (and over-prescribed) for acute post-surgical pain.”

    “People with intractable pain conditions are put on opioids when conventional medical therapy and alternative medicine have failed them.”

    The above statement is simply not an accurate portrayal of the current reality in medical care. It is hard for me to believe anything you say when you make statements like this.

    Yes, I believe many doctors get nervous when patients have been on high levels of pain drugs and come in and report that they are no longer working ((or that they ran out of their pills or lost their prescription bottle, true or not) and they need a higher dose or a new prescription for another drug. I am sure all kinds of prejudices and liability alarms go off for these doctors and they become very distrustful of their patients and sometimes deny them more prescriptions.

    However, the reality is that most chronic pain patients are still getting opiate drugs, if in some cases, very reluctantly from their doctors. If this were not true then who the hell is getting the millions of opiate prescriptions written in this country every year that has risen exponentially over the past two decades.

    And for you to say …such prescriptions are almost always a last resort in chronic pain… ignores the reality that almost all people who report pain symptoms to a doctor have routinely been offered pain drugs over the years. I live in an area of Massachusetts where there is a very high per capita rate of heroin addiction and overdose fatalities. These drugs have been handed out like candy for years, and this STILL happens routinely in our area hospital ER’s despite all the recent publicity.

    For decades opiates have been the FIRST LINE of treatment for pain and ALTERNATIVES are only proposed when various other problems arise or nothing changes for the patient. This is the exact opposite of what you have stated.

    And just how many of these chronic pain cases were actually INITIATED or CAUSED by those first stages of treatment where pain drugs dominated (over a significant period of time) the patient’s initial treatment plan?

    After all, just like a benzo for a high degree of anxiety, opiate drugs are extremely effective (in the earlier stages) for acute pain, and “the path of least resistance” for any human being (including the doctor) is to want the quickest and most pragmatic solution to take way uncomfortable pain or anxiety. For some people this could be the start of a whole chain reaction of events that destines certain patients to a lifetime of failed medical treatment and a chronically disabled condition.

    We all should now be learning that once tolerance and other brain responses to the drug’s effect on neurochemistry take over a whole NEW set of potential problems can emerge for an unsuspecting patient. In the mean time many people become both physically AND psychologically dependent on these drugs and often become VERY impatient when other longer term (not so immediate pain reducing) alternatives are suggested. This is human nature for all of us. And this is especially true when people have acute memory pathways of the first stages of treatment when opiate drugs were very effective.

    I know that what I just stated does NOT apply to every patient, but to ignore or not explore all of these tender and sensitive issues is to not do justice to the enormity of these problems and the complexities of finding helpful solutions for those experiencing chronic pain.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Fiachra

    There are no easy solutions or “one size fits all” approach because every medical condition is different.

    Based on information I have encountered over the years here are some initial thoughts on areas to investigate with appropriate medical guidance:

    1) Physical Rehabilitation with specific exercises designed to strengthen muscles and tissue surrounding the areas and sources of pain.

    2) On going exercise of all kinds (especially walking and adapted forms of yoga) that can be safely tolerated while pushing the boundaries of frustration/tolerance limits for each individual.

    3) Mindfulness Meditation, also has scientifically proven benefits for chronic pain and anxiety.

    I hesitate to even mention these options because I know that some people reading this will say that either they have tried these before without success, or that their medical condition precludes them from any of these activities. Although meditation can be practiced by anyone if they persevere long enough in the learning process.

    There is no way of having this discussion without offending someone or being accused of insensitivity or being told you have no right to speak unless you yourself are a chronic pain patient. But you did ask for thoughts and I have tried to respectfully reply.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • In this blog Richard Lawhern uses statistics from the Cochrane Review Groups to support his contention that there is no opiate drug prescription problem. It is interesting that if you actual read the source he uses to bolster his argument you find the following quote from Cochrane: “…the evidence supporting the conclusions is weak and long term studies are needed to actually identify the patients who are most likely to benefit from treatment.”

    And further check out this quote from The National Institutes of Health article titled “Pathways to Prevention: The Role of Opioids in the Treatment of Chronic pain” : “… long-term opioid use can also result in physical dependence, making it difficult to discontinue use even when the original cause of pain is no longer present. Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that long-term opioid use for pain can actually produce a chronic pain state, whereby patients find themselves in a vicious cycle, where opioids are used to treat pain caused by previous opioid use.”

    “Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that the prescribing of opioids by clinicians has increased threefold in the last 20 years, contributing to the problem of prescription opioid abuse.1 Today, the number of people who die from prescription opioids exceeds the number of those who die from heroin and cocaine, combined.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Johanna

    No apologies necessary. You are speaking the truth and it needs to be repeated in multiple ways.

    Exposure of nefarious and dangerous drug promotion and prescribing by Big Pharma is NOT part of the War on Drugs.

    I think everyone in this discussion would agree that the War on Drugs was a very harmful government strategy of misdirection that covered up its own failings and targeted society’s victims trying to survive in the underclasses.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This is a good article except that it keeps repeating the phrase the “nonmedical” use of stimulant drugs. The use of this term implies that there is somehow a scientifically justified and credible “medical” use of these drugs. Or that somehow if you take these drugs for a “real” medical purpose you will avoid all the potential damaged discussed in the article. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is NO credible scientific basis for the diagnosis of ADHD and no safe or credible basis to prescribe these drugs to children or adults.

    Report comment

  • Richard

    There are so many problems with this blog I don’t know where to begin.

    There is little to no evidence that opiate drug use appropriately manages chronic pain issues in the long term: in fact the exact opposite is true. Functionality assessments for long term opiate users shows a disabling decline on many levels similar to other categories of psychiatric drugs. Some experts believe that long term use of opiates can cause a GREATER sensitivity to pain over the long haul. Readers should google “opioid induced hyperalgesia” for a description of one aspect of this phenomena. This process is very similar to the compensatory push back reaction the brain has to perturbing serotonin and dopamine systems in brain neurochemistry.

    Are there some people who may benefit from prolonged use of opiates for pain management? I am sure there is a subset of these people, as there may be with benzodiazepine use, for a certain small number of medical conditions. Are you going to argue that some of us are also promoting hysteria around benzos too, and that this will deny “millions of anxiety suffers” their needed “medicines”?

    Of course certain pain suffers (especially those with cancer etc.) should not be denied these drugs or stigmatized. But these people are a minority, and up until now opiate drugs have been more than readily available in thousands of profitable pain clinics and with doctors who have a guaranteed number of returning patients on a regular basis. Even with all the recent publicity there is little evidence prescriptions have declined

    Evidence indicates that the rise in opiate prescriptions has fueled the opiate epidemic. 60 percent of all new heroin/opiate addicts came to this condition via their access to opiate drug prescriptions. I don’t care if it was their own prescription or pills stolen from the family bathroom vanity; it all came with the same rise in opiate prescriptions starting in the mid 1990’s.

    Why is it that you made no mention of the “Fifth Vital Sign Campaign” that was launched in the mid 1990’s when the drug oxycontin was first put on the market. This drug was marketed as LESS addictive than other opioid drugs and subsequently made billions for Purdue Pharmaceuticals. As is usual with drug marketing it turned out to be MORE addictive and no more effective for chronic pain than a host of other opiate drugs on the market. There are a number of major law suits that have been filed against Purdue and they are being forced to reveal the contents of previously hidden internal documents that covered up the dangers and false marketing related to oxycontin.

    They (Purdue) launched a heavily funded campaign (Fifth Vital Sign) to require all doctors to check pain levels for all patients receiving medical care. They encouraged an atmosphere where doctors could be punished if they failed to prescribe opiates to patients who described a certain level of pain. It was this campaign that led to a proliferation of very profitable pain clinics and “pill mills” all over the country. In Florida they were located in multiple strip malls in practically every city throughout the state. I had a former client who told me he flew to Florida on a monthly basis to pick up a cache’ of opiate prescriptions that he would profitably sell when he flew back to Massachusetts.

    There are multiple sources of evidence that shows the connection between the rapid rise in opiate prescriptions starting in the mid 1990’s and the expansion of the opiate overdose epidemic sweeping the country. And BTW, this also parallels the rise in benzodiazepine prescriptions that took off after Psychiatry (starting in the late 1980’s) successfully marketed these drugs for a host of anxiety “disorders.” Hence we now have the “perfect storm” of dependency and addiction where benzos have become the decisive added component in a deadly cocktail of drugs.

    You said: ” There is real and valid concern for the avoidable death and destruction which are wrought by illicit opioids in the US. But the contribution of prescription opioids in pain patients is tiny, and even the number of deaths is over-blown.”

    I’d say that 4 deaths a day in Massachusetts alone is not overblown. And this has to be well over 15 a day throughout the U.S. How many deaths would it take to get your attention or before you thought there might be a problem?

    I could go on and on about the misdirected nature of the content of this blog. The only statement in this entire blog that I agree with is the following quote you included: ” “If we want to reduce opioid addiction, we have to target the real risk factors for it: child trauma, mental illness and unemployment.”

    As with all the extreme psychological distress discussed here at MIA, in the long term we must advocate for major systemic changes in our society that challenge the inequities in a class based profit system. However, in the short term we can’t ignore the more overt examples of a runaway medical model doing the profitable bidding of an omnipotent pharmaceutical industry.

    If you are trying to advocate for people with chronic pain issues you have done them a great disservice with these sort of arguments. And most importantly you have denied the existence of a major epidemic of opiate drug prescribing of epic proportions that is causing great harm to millions of people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    This is a very good blog.

    I prefer the term “coping mechanisms” a little better than “strategies” which implies a more conscious process on the part of the person dealing with these issues.

    In my very first blog at MIA in 2012 titled “Addiction, Biological psychiatry, and the Disease Model” I wrote the following description to also cover addiction behaviors in this process:

    “In opposition to the disease model we might find it helpful to conceptualize and understand both addiction and symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness,” more simply as useful coping mechanisms that over time get stuck in the “on” position. Let me explain. Human beings are driven to repeat behaviors that are pleasurable and/or take away pain, and they usually have sound cognitive rationalizations for doing so. These tendencies are very much related to our survival as a species, especially when you look at the drive to eat, drink, and procreate. In other forms of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance most people who use alcohol and other mind altering drugs more often feel very good in the earlier stages of their use. This is especially true when there are generally fewer negative consequences associated with their consumption. Some people have also postulated that human beings are, at times, attracted to altered states of consciousness. This can be a way to avoid boredom through experimentation, or, perhaps more often, become a creative way to escape or rise above the resulting discomfort or trauma experienced in a threatening environment. In the beginning stages of drug use, these substances may provide a temporary pleasurable escape from a harsh reality and/or become a very successful short term coping mechanism that actually prevents more dangerous reactive behaviors (including suicide), or perhaps even helps prevent the person from going “crazy.”

    “Similarly, extreme states of psychological distress can lead to altered states of consciousness that are mislabeled as a “mental illness” and a “disease,” but could instead be better looked at as a creative and necessary coping mechanism dealing with an experienced and/or perceived hostile and threatening environment. This coping mechanism, as with addiction, may also prevent more extreme reactive behaviors or provide an escape or temporary relief from intense physical or emotional pain.”

    “Here is the rub. A problem often arises with both substance use leading to addiction and also with extreme states of psychological distress, when these behaviors and related thought patterns are sustained for extended periods of time, the formerly helpful coping mechanisms can gradually, or even suddenly, turn into their opposite and now become primarily self-destructive, self-defeating, and socially unacceptable*. This is especially true when the short term benefits of the behavior and resulting thought patterns start to shift and begin to cause far more immediate, as well as long term negative consequences for the individual and the people around them. Some people may now actually get stuck in this new state of being and be unable to find their way out by themselves. This is the point when we might say that these once helpful coping mechanisms have now seemingly become stuck in the “on” position. * I am aware that socially unacceptable behavior can be both useful and necessary in changing the world for the better.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Chemonster1980

    You said : ” I think Psychiatry is essential for the well being of peoples in mental distress. It’s up to the practitioner to be a good psychiatrist.”

    Perhaps your faith and belief in the necessity of Psychiatry for people suffering with some form of mental distress has been part of yours and millions of others’ undoing. Making a “break” from that way of thinking (or expecting them to solve these problems) might be an important step for all those seeking some type of path to recovery.

    These are NOT “diseases” that need to be drugged away, which is the primary outlook and approach of Biological Psychiatry. These (eg. depression and anxiety etc.) are better viewed as coping mechanisms that are usually functional and successful in the short term but sometimes get stuck in the “on” position and become dysfunctional, self-defeating, and socially unacceptable over the long term. Drugs (over the long haul) make things worse and more chronic due to the brain’s compensatory reaction to the drugs.

    I believe in the neuroplasticity of the brain and the value of finding some form and/or plan of micro-tapering for a protracted form of slow withdrawal from the damaging effects of psychiatric drugs. There are many success stories reported here on MIA and great resources detailing helpful strategies on the website like “Beyond Meds” run by Monica Cassani.

    We cannot underestimate the value of social supports such as close friends and family, and especially other people going through the same process of withdrawal. Therefore, websites such as Benzo Buddies and Surviving antidepressants that offer support and advice for coming off these drugs can be life saving and essential lifelines in this struggle.

    Yes, having a supportive and knowledgeable doctor or psychiatrist can be very helpful in this process, especially to obtain the appropriate prescriptions for the drugs necessary for micro-tapering. But unless they are a proven expert in psych drug withdrawal their approach may be no more helpful than advice you could receive within one of these internet forums from “citizen scientists” who have accumulated their knowledge for self survival purposes.

    Everyone must find their own path to recovery. Gather as much information from all sources, including your doctor, and make your own determination for how to proceed with your withdrawal at your own pace while staying connected to your support system. If one must remain on some level of drugs to maintain themselves, so be it, but people can reevaluate that decision on a periodic basis.

    Don’t be so hard on yourself. There are bigger forces at work here that are responsible for the psych drug crisis that is effecting millions of people. I admire your perseverance and resilience in this battle.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • JackDaniels

    You said“It is human nature to capitalize on others just as in the animal kingdom with lions eating weaker animals.”

    Analogies that compare human beings to other mammals, and then draw conclusions about the nature of our society based on these comparisons, is NOT scientific and only serves the interests of those who profess various forms of genetic determinism.

    Science and history indicates that human nature is very adaptable and malleable, and is very much dependent on the way society is organized and on the existence of scarcity or abundance in the necessities of life.

    Under capitalism and its related culture it is no accident that many people adopt a “look out for number one and stab people in the back to get ahead” mentality. This is a direct reflection of the “expand or die; eat up your competition before they eat you up” economic survival approach that directly flows from the capitalist law of value.

    When human history reaches a point where social and economic classes no longer exist and society is organized on the principle of “from each according to his/her abilities to each according to their needs,” then human nature will have developed and adapted to a place where all forms of violence and exploitation will no longer be necessary and will have simply withered away.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    You said: “…but the death of capitalism and the rise of a benevolent, egalitarian social/economic world can only be a partial solution to our culture’s dilemma in my view.”

    I agree that the issues we face as a human species are much more complicated than simply revolutionizing property relationships and the way human necessities are both produced and distributed in our society.

    However, I would argue that as a species we cannot even begin to SERIOUSLY address these problems without such a fundamental economic and political shift on a global scale.

    Unless and until ALL people have the same opportunities to access life’s necessities and be both “doers”and “thinkers” we will inevitably be divided into classes. This creates the material conditions for all forms of human exploitation (including patriarchy in all its manifestations) and the types of competition that ultimately leads to plunder, war, and the destruction of the planet.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    You have gone so much deeper in your analysis and prose to help explain the more hidden forms of psychological and emotional trauma that pervades our culture and society. Since you mentioned Herbert Marcuse in a prior comment following the Bruce Levine blog, what has jumped into my mind is the Marxian concept and explanation for “alienation.”

    Much of this alienation has its origins in a class based capitalist economic system. It is here where the various commodities produced via the human creativity, blood, sweat, and tears of those who labor with their hands and bodies (and all their labor value added to those commodities) are ultimately ripped away from their control as they leave the factory, only to later confront them in the marketplace. Here their wages (only a small portion of their own added value) may not even provide enough for them to actually afford to purchase their own human creations. Is this not where it all begins?

    Unfortunately, in this kind of system many of our actual human interactions are based on some form of “commodity relationship”; the antithesis of human love and compassion.

    We often meet and interact with each other as “commodities” to be bought and sold, or as some source or way to extract money or profit from one another in order to survive and exist. How alienating and overall psychologically damaging are these “emotional wounds of omission” that pervade every pore and fiber of our daily existence. They are so subtle and pervasive that we are barely aware of their presence and damaging effects.

    Michael, thanks for these wonderful words and reminders of what is necessary and important in trying to achieve our human potential in this insane world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Chemonster1980

    You said: “Mr. Lewis, if every household in America had a bottle of Xanax in the medicine cabinet Anheuser-Busch, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and your local neighborhood drug dealers would be out of business in no time.”

    I would say that close to 100 million prescriptions of benzos written yearly in the U.S. has not reduced or replaced other drug consumption; if anything it has only increased other drug use, perhaps even including SSRI’s.

    And benzos have clearly become the drug of choice for opiate addicted or dependent people to add to their ever so deadly drug cocktail. At least 30% of all fatal overdoses involve the DECISIVE deadly benzo component. Unfortunately, I think we can predict what might be in Prince’s toxic drug screen.

    I empathize with your anger and cynicism regarding the devastating effects of SSRI’s on unsuspecting victims. But let’s not minimize the dangers and damage done by other categories of drugs, especially benzos. The tens of thousands of people seeking help (outside the medical establishment) on multiple websites dedicated to major problems with benzodiazepines is testimony to the scope of this problem.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Michael

    I respect your experience, commitment, and passion for political change. You have presented a very strong case for why we should focus a great deal of our political exposure on NAMI for its role in defending and propping up an oppressive “mental health” system.

    However, I don’t think the solution for our organizing efforts is to somehow become better than NAMI at trying to influence those who wield political power in this profit based capitalist system. That is, become a pressure group trying to get Democratic politicians (at any level) to become something they never will become, and something they are completely incapable of becoming as long as they are dependent on and beholden to being elected to represent and defend a profit based system. This game of “pin the tail on the donkey or elephant” is a demoralizing dead end for political organizing.

    I am not saying that we should never do anything within this mainstream political process. Hell, I recently testified at a political hearing on an important benzo bill pending in the Massachusetts legislation process (btw, its potential passage has been postponed, as one might have expected given the powerful opposition by organized Psychiatry). I am only advocating that this type of political pressure group work should NOT be the focus, or main aspect of our efforts.

    Whatever campaigns (opposing psychiatric oppression) we focus on should principally take place OUTSIDE mainstream politics. Our efforts SHOULD NOT rely on us successfully begging politicians to somehow ignore their need to court (or not offend) the corporate interests and major political players for their next electoral process. Ain’t going to happen. Michael, I think some of the experiences you recount proves this point out.

    We need to create the basis for a political uprising and movement of an educated and aroused populace that can’t be ignored by those in power for fear of even greater resistance. Hasn’t history proved that for example, the Civil Rights movement and Anti-war movement mainly advanced on the basis of these OUTSIDE forms of political organizing which forced those in power to support reforms out of fear of further forms of rebellion.

    Whatever we do must involve creative tactics and forms of organizing that exposes and embarrasses those in power. And we must combine all this with exposure of the ultimate oppressive nature of a profit based system that corrupts all human endeavors. Does anyone here really believe we can truly end psychiatric oppression and have compassionate supports for people suffering from extreme psychological distress within a capitalist based profit system???

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Oldhead

    I also wrote the following statement in the same blog from which those quotes derived:

    “This definition does NOT mean that psychiatry in the prior period should be labeled as somehow more benign or potentially less dangerous; forced treatment, electro-shock, and lobotomies have a clear legacy in the earlier years. This analysis is merely an attempt to describe what modern day psychiatry has evolved into over the past 40 years; an evolution punctuated by major leaps in growth and overall influence throughout society. Biological Psychiatry has actually become the worst of psychiatry on steroids, with many additional forms of oppression.”

    Let’s not quibble about the word “biological.” You can leave it out if you must. I hope you are in some agreement with the overall gist of my analysis and the implications for our strategic approaches towards both ending psychiatric abuse and sweeping Psychiatry into the “Dustbin of History.”

    Arise all ye activists. What’s up!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bruce

    Great blog. It provides the basis for a very important and necessary discussion.

    In a prior blog I authored I made the following statements that are pertinent to this discussion:

    “This evolution of psychiatry in the recent era has to be carefully examined in connection to its strong links to the U.S. economy, especially the meteoric rise in the pharmaceutical industry, as well as other geo-political developments in the world, including increased governmental control and forms of repression in post 9/11 America…”

    “Biological Psychiatry is not your grandmother’s or father’s psychiatry, as the expression goes; it’s not just “psychiatry being psychiatry” all over again. It is exponentially more dangerous and powerful than ever, and absolutely more essential to the “powers that be” in preserving the status quo. To not understand or grasp these historic changes will cause us to underestimate what we are up against and possibly misdirect us away from knowing how to develop the appropriate strategy for future efforts to end all psychiatric oppression…”

    ” Today’s Biological Psychiatry has become such an essential part of the economic and political fabric holding together our present day society, including its ability and need to maintain control over the more volatile sections of the population, that its future existence may be totally interdependent on the rise and fall of the entire system itself….”

    Having said all of the above rather dire statements, I am optimistic and do believe that this system provides many openings for exposure of its oppressive nature and opportunities to rally forces for systemic change.

    I have written in detail about the benzodiazepine crisis being “psychiatry’s weakest link.” I also believe that the numbers of suicides and acts of violence connected to psychiatric drugs has reached a critical mass where millions of people have been negatively affected and are very open to (and looking for) an avenue to express their outrage and a way to strike back (in an organized way) against those people and institutions responsible.

    We must identify the key struggles to focus on and develop the most creative and appropriate strategy and tactics to carry out this work.

    Thank you again Bruce for raising this topic.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Cynthia

    One can believe that some, or all, of the so-called “symptoms” that get labeled as ADHD exist for some people, or partially exist for others, AND still believe that the diagnosis is a hoax and a creation of Big Pharma and the APA.

    I see these “symptoms” as being related to various conflicts with the environment which may involve trauma experiences, power struggles, and exposure to toxic or allergic substances. There are other ways to address and work with these problems of conflict other than drugs. I don’t say this is an easy process but many have found successful ways to address these problems. I like everything Steve McCrea has to say on this subject and his personal experience with his sons.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    Since in today’s world Psychiatry does in fact equal multiple forms of oppression then “slowing down” psychiatry is still means preserving oppression.

    I have not made any statement saying that under no circumstances should some type of drug be used. We do not need Psychiatry to prescribe a drug if necessary for a short period of time.

    Given the interconnections between trauma and many different physical reactions or so-called “symptoms,” ALL doctors will constantly confront medical phenomena they do not immediately understand. This is in keeping with Van Der Kolk’s “The Body Keeps the Score” analysis of trauma’s affect on the mind/body connection. Why separate out a medical specialty when ALL doctors are challenged by these diagnostic dilemmas and appropriate assessments of their patients?

    Let’s be clear about definitions; you are still defending the “mainstream” (or an attempt to reform or preserve it) with your current analysis.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    I respect many things you do and write about regarding therapeutic methods of support for people in various forms of psychological and emotional crisis, however I need to be blunt in my assessment of the main point of this blog.

    You stated: “…but it’s really not an argument in support of modern psychiatry which actually does a very poor job of addressing these three areas of concern, due sometimes to over-reach, and sometimes to neglect.”

    This statement indicates to me that you are vastly understating the nature of psychiatric oppression, and this may explain why you advocate for preserving some reformed part of the institution.

    I agree with all commenters who are arguing for the elimination, or better, the “withering away” of Psychiatry.

    Ron, I believe the essence of your position is attempting to legitimize the ultimate scientific separation of “mind and body.” ALL medical doctors need to be better trained with the best that modern science can offer regarding the true nature of the mind/body connection. There is NO need for some type of specialty you advocate for.The more knowledge medical doctors have regarding these connections the better they will be able to help people engaged in some type of extreme conflict (or medical crisis) with their environment and all the physical and mental interactions that may occur.

    “Slowing down” oppression does not stop it from happening. Given the omnipotence of the Biological Psychiatry paradigm of “treatment” and the entrenched nature of the institution’s connections to Big Pharma, “slowing” things down is NOT a solution or even a reasonable alternative. The “train” needs to go in the OPPOSITE direction not merely be “slowed down.”

    As to a present role (and for the next several decades) for the more knowledgeable and well meaning psychiatrists, they DO have an important role to play in helping dependent people safely withdraw from the prolific amount of psychotropic drugs affecting millions of victims. There is plenty of important work they can perform advancing the science of withdrawal, securing prescriptions, and offering compassionate support for psychiatric victims.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    You said: “But the real point I’m making is that materialism of whatever sort, just like idealism, is a philosophical viewpoint, not a scientific verity. There is no requirement that a person subscribe to materialist or reductionist views to be scientific, nor is the presence of that kind of philosophical viewpoint a guarantee or even a suggestion of a person being scientific.”

    I believe one must first make an historical choice between “materialism” and “idealism” in order to be thoroughly scientific in one’s approach to science. That is, grasp the fact that there is a material reality independent of our own thought processes.

    “Reductionism”, in my view, is a distortion of a true dialectical materialist approach to science, and therefore is a departure from “materialism” and a correct scientific method.

    I also have an issue with the use of the term “scientism” as a negative. It is like those who criticize “political correctness.” What is the hell is wrong with being politically correct? Something is either racist, homophobic, misogynist etc. or it is not. Isn’t this an example of those people on the Right who want to avoid debate or criticism of their backward views.

    On the same note, how can it be wrong to be TOO scientific? This makes no sense at all. Is this not an example of a criticism by those people who want to avoid following through with a more rigorous and thoroughgoing scientific method. Here again, Biological Psychiatry resorts to reductionism, pragmatism, and mechanical materialism etc. which makes them LESS scientific not MORE or TOO scientific.

    You said: “A person could be very scientific and believe that there are unknowable things in the world.”

    I agree. but that same person could ALSO believe that those things currently unknowable can ultimately one day be known. This is NOT just a matter of philosophy but I believe a basic tenant of a thorough going scientific approach to understanding the world.

    Steve, we are going deep here. I wish we (including Oldhead, Uprising, and others) could do this over a coffee or a beer. These may seem like obtuse discussions to some, but I believe they are critically important to how we ultimately solve some of the important issues confronting us at this particular juncture in human history.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera and others,

    Doctors, Psychiatrists and other “mental health” workers are viewed (in general) as “helpers” as SA correctly pointed out. I believe it is for this reason that most people who come at the world from some place on the “Left” have both read and absorbed more of the Biological Psychiatry narrative and their phony scientific outlook that justifies their form of “helping.”

    Those coming from the “right” are generally more skeptical of “helpers” or “do gooders” or a “do gooding” analysis of the world. They have accepted a much more “Social Darwinism” and self serving (that is to ruling classes) Capitalist view of human nature. So therefore they would also be more skeptical of “high end helpers” such as Psychiatrists and the theories that guide their profession.

    One way to counter these narratives is to show how Biological Psychiatry and the current paradigm of today’s “mental health” system is trying to label, sedate, and drug away the next generation of new creative agents of change.

    Some of the most highly labeled and drugged sectors of our society today come from the same social strata that were most activated in the 1960’s and who created the greatest fear in the minds of the “establishment.” MIA blogger, Bruce Levine, in his writings really gets this point.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Steve

    I am not sure I understood your critique of philosophical materialism.” A “materialist” philosophical approach to understanding the world arose in opposition to philosophical “idealism.” “I am therefore I think” makes more scientific sense than its opposite.

    So when you said: ” …it is no more mystical to insist that the mind is generated by the brain than to insist that it is an external entity occupying the body, as neither of these positions has the slightest degree of scientific evidence to support it.” I am not sure what you by this.

    Our mind, emotions and thought processes etc. exist due to our body and brain’s interactions with the material world – this is my understanding of a true “materialist” outlook. Are there mysteries in the world? To deny such a thing would be a form of “mechanical materialism,” that is, not a consistent or accurate application of materialist dialectics But I do believe that everything is “knowable,” however, because the universe is so infinitely vast and always in a state of change there will be an infinite state of things (or reality) we don’t yet know.

    Biological Psychiatry concentrates various forms of “reductionism” and “mechanical materialism.” We should not avoid the correct use of materialist dialectics because of their perversions of the scientific method and outlook.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera and all

    Great blog; very necessary discussion.

    I prefer to address this problem to those on the “Left” due to the general confusion and misuse of the labels of “liberals” and “progressives.” Oldhead correctly brought up the sarcastic and oh so true words in the s song “Love Me Love Me I’m a Liberal” and let’s not forget that Hillary Clinton describes herself as a “progressive.”

    BPDT’, your questioning of the American masses’ intelligence and over use of the word “sheep” is in the final analysis “victim blaming.” This part of your analysis severely undermines the many other good points in your overall comments. It is one thing to say, for dramatic effect, that people are acting like sheep, but to say they ARE sheep takes it to another determinist level.

    How is the over emphasis on “intelligence” much different than Biological Psychiatry’s emphasis on the genetic basis of “mental illness.” In the end to promote such a fatalist viewpoint represents a “lazy ass” approach to the important work we have to do to change people’s minds and build active resistance to this oppressive system.

    Every single important historical movement for revolutionary change had to confront a brain washed population of the masses with a backward outlook imposed on them by the ruling classes and the power of the status quo. It takes creative methods of struggle and hard work to change this; what’s new! Sera’s blog is one challenging and creative way to go about this. Kudos!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JDoe, Ally, and Meghan,

    Thanks very much for those positive words. It means so much to me to read these words from you guys after going through some of our recent back and forth on this blog.

    It was an honor for me to be able to participate in this historic testimony and support the benzo community in any way I could. And trust me when I say that I was thinking of you (JDoe and other ID advocates) when I was writing my testimony and while I was speaking at this hearing.

    I have learned a great deal from reading your material and it has definitely influenced my thinking and my use of language. Given all the suffering the benzo community has endured, I felt a tremendous weight of social responsibility to discuss this crisis with the highest level of compassion and understanding possible at this time.

    One thing that the video did not include was my single response to a comment by one legislator when she brought up “dual diagnosis” and the need for more treatment options for people with multiple problems including “addictions.” I responded by saying that the vast majority of benzo victims are suffering from medically induced physical dependency and do NOT belong in addiction rehab centers, and that this type of “treatment” is NOT helpful to people harmed by benzos. You would have been proud.

    As much as I have been exposed to benzo victim narratives in person, in videos, and in personal written stories, I was literally blown away by the power of this testimony. If people were not moved to tears by this experience then they probably do not possess a human heart or conscience. And as we all know this represents only the tip of an enormous iceberg.

    As you might imagine, I also felt a tremendous social responsibility to speak out about the benzo connection to the opioid overdose crisis as well. There was a clear moral obligation on my part due to the fact that at least 3 people die everyday in Massachusetts from fatal overdoses, and benzos are intimately involved in those deaths. This obligation was especially true since I had access to important statistics that no one else in the state was willing to bring up. One does not often get a chance to speak to those who hold political power, and there are, in these circumstances, difficult choices to be made as to what should be emphasized.

    As to ID and addiction language issues, some of the most powerful testimony by some survivors at this hearing did, on a few occasions, confuse or misuse the term “addicted” or “addiction” when discussing what was clearly iatrogenic dependency. We all have more work to do to educate people about these important differences. I will continue to advocate for this kind of education in all the work I do.

    I could not figure out how to access the media coverage that you indicate may have mischaracterized the content of parts of the hearing. Could you tell me how to access that reporting so I can look it over?

    At this time I still believe that we can and must take on the entire benzo crisis (as a whole) while, at the same time, respecting some of the differences within the broad community. Just as it may take some time to fully educate the broader benzo community about the differences between iatrogenic dependence and addiction (and why this is important), we will ALSO (at the same time) have to educate the media as this struggle further develops. Given the powerful influences in our culture around these issues both these areas of education will take some time and effort.

    And finally, even though I have stated before that the benzo crisis may potentially be the most explosive struggle related to all the crimes of Psychiatry, my experience with this recent benzo hearing has only confirmed that reality ten times over.

    The harm done by benzodiazepines (and those institutions that profit from their distribution) cuts into every sector of our society, and as more people come out of the shadows this type of outpouring of grief and anger may become an unstoppable prairie fire that will shake this System to its core. Bring it on!

    One of the greatest feelings of accomplishment about participating in this testimony of the oppressed was seeing all the smiles and joy expressed on the faces of those involved right after the hearing was completed.

    Here was a group of survivors and/or family members whose voices cracked, hands shook, and eyes shed many tears while telling their painful stories, who now beamed with a sense of liberation and empowerment. They came out of the shadows and stood up before the “powers that be” and spoke the truth about benzodiazepines and a great harm being perpetrated in our society. I was inspired by their courage as well as encouraged to believe that this is only the beginning of something much bigger to come.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Steve and Oldhead

    What makes more sense to say in this situation is that ALL human being are genetically predisposed to exhibit the thoughts and behaviors that get label as “schizophrenia” (or any other substance abuse or psychiatric “disorder”) if subjected to a similar set of environmental stressors for a certain length of time. These thoughts and behaviors are therefore ALL within the NORMAL range of human expression under relatively ABNORMAL circumstances.

    These thoughts and behaviors are therefore better looked at as various forms of COPING MECHANISMS that usually work for a certain period of time but sometimes get stuck in the “ON” position and can become misunderstood, socially unacceptable, and self defeating within our present culture.

    It would also make more sense to say that the human species is genetically predisposed to “RECOVERY” and/or “TRANSFORMATION” from these culturally viewed extreme states. We have a cerebral cortex in our brains that allows for rational decision making about what thoughts and behaviors serve our best interests, and also influences our ability to seek out more social and compassionate forms of human support.

    Any other discussion about genetics in this context is a waste of money and time and misdirects us away from understanding both the systemic barriers to human progress and the actual solutions to the problems confronting the human species at this juncture in our history.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I think some people might say if you talk TOO much about how these drugs are used (and prescribed) to people with addiction issues and are also a major contributing factor in the opiate overdose fatalities, then all this type of publicity might be over emphasizing addiction problems related to benzos. In the minds of some people this could possibly taint (with the brush of addiction) those emphasizing ID advocacy and/or lead to limits on being able to access these drugs for protracted tapering regimens.

    I believe we can and must do both, that is, ID advocacy AND exposure of other harms connected to benzos. This way we can possibly “blow the top off” the entire benzo crises by exposing All THE WAYS that these drugs are causing harm, thereby increasing our ability to wage the broadest amount of struggle (uniting many sectors of people) to finally end this crisis once and for all.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Meghan

    Thanks so much for this incredibly thoughtful and challenging comment.

    I’ve had many challenging comments but this one gets right to the heart of the dilemma that we all face in trying to advance the cause of many different constituencies harmed by benzos, in particular, and by the broader forms of institutional oppression. There are no easy answers to this dilemma.

    It is clear to me that you definitely understand the links between many different struggles within our society and you are trying to think in a very strategic way about resolving these problems. I very much appreciate your efforts to venture into the strategic realm of this vital discussion.

    You said: “Make no mistake, a unified front is the ultimate goal in facing these massively entrenched systems. The strongest forms of unity arise when those with very real differences come together in a common cause without negating their distinct narratives and perspectives. Both addicts and iatrogenically harmed individuals face a common structural failure and source of injustice, which impacts different groups differently, but all groups tragically. And precisely because it impacts so many different people in so many different ways, it serves to weave a radically diverse constituency together into an emergent (but not homogenized) unity. But this goal will take time to achieve.”

    This statement describes some of the barriers we face, but also speaks to the very ideal and larger goal that is necessary for resolving the benzo crisis as part of a much larger movement challenging Biological Psychiatry and today’s “mental health” system as a whole.

    You also said: “The addiction narrative turns what is a social-structural problem of a profit-driven healthcare industry into something that appears instead to be a personal failing of “addicts and abusers.” It says to the casual media consumer, “prescription drugs and healthcare are fine, it’s the personal failures and problems of addicts that are to blame.”

    I would agree with this statement, and I would add that the power structure is forever distracting people away from the sources of their oppression by focusing on “personal failures,” the most extreme version of this is blaming all these problems on defective genes and the “diseases” that these so-called defective genes give rise to. Out of this flows their mythical theory of “chemical imbalances” and their justification for massive drugging to correct these “imbalances.” It is in this context that the benzo crisis has arisen and expanded.

    While I agree that there is a clear basis for the iatrogenic dependent constituency to gather its forces and develop its theory and advocacy plans (even have separate gatherings etc.), I don’t think this requires distancing from all things addiction. Nor do I believe this effort to distance themselves will strategically benefit the cause in the short or long run.

    For example, if a major conference were organized on the entire benzodiazepine crisis (which should happen now) in this country, “I have a dream” that many different groups could and should play a decisive role in such a conference. Clearly the ID community would be centrally featured in this conference, but it would ALSO be important to have some other sectors of people harmed by benzos in our society. This could include people who are (or were) iatrogenically dependent and harmed by benzos, but also involved with other substances of abuse, and/or family members who have lost loved ones to the deadly drug cocktails of opiates and benzos. There already exists a very angry and activated number of families in this country who don’t yet know how critical a role benzos may have played in their loved one’s death.

    Meghan, here is another example that I need specific help with that directly applies to the strategic questions you are raising. Next Monday I plan on testifying (as an LMHC and Certified Addiction Specialist CAS) at the legislative hearing in Boston in support of the benzo bill (see Alison Page’s recent posting). While survivors will play the major role in this testimony and the essence of this bill is focused on protection of the ID community, there is also related issues of dangerous prescribing patterns negatively affecting other sectors, including the opiate overdose epidemic problem which is huge in Massachusetts.

    In that 3 minutes I plan to spend the first minute and a half testifying about what I observed in my 22 years in the community mental health system as to how prolific prescribing of benzos has created ID dependency and caused great harm to innocent victims who need the protection of this new legislation.

    The second part of my testimony I want to focus on how dangerous benzo prescribing patterns have fueled the overdose epidemic; a problem NOBODY in the state wants to address. They only want to talk about exercising more control over opiate prescriptions but never mention benzos. In fact, Obama and Govenor Baker want to have MORE people prescribed synthetic opiates such as methadone and suboxone as the so-called solution to the opiate overdose epidemic. If they fail to address the benzo problem at the same time, their policies may actually INCREASE the number of overdose deaths, or at best the death rates will NOT go down, given that benzos are decisively involved in at least 30% of the overdose deaths. This is a great opportunity to exposed irresponsible crimes of Big Pharma and Psychiatry who initiated the benzo crisis 35 years ago.

    Question: Am I approaching this opportunity to testify in the right way? Is it wrong to address both ID advocacy and the connection of benzos to addiction (opiate epidemic) related issues within the same 3 minutes of testimony regarding the overall benzo crisis?

    Meghan,this is a living example of the very dilemma and strategic conundrum that you have raised in your very thoughtful comment. Perhaps discussing this particular example will help flesh out the complicated nature of addressing all these issues in a way that will advance the cause of all the constituencies that have a stake in ending the harm done by benzos.

    Thanks again for initiating such an articulate and important discussion.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    Thanks for coming back in and seeking some type of resolution to the sharp differences that came up between us in this blog. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to clarify both your words and your intentions in your prior comments. It has been very unsettling to me to think that our relationship might become estranged because of some of these exchanges; so thanks again for reaching out.

    I am willing to accept your prior comments which indicated that some of my words may have been triggering to you. Under those circumstances this can influence the form (as opposed to content) in which an emotional response can be delivered. I know that in this discussion I was a bit on edge because I knew that I was treading in extremely sensitive waters with this blog, and I felt, at times, like I was under a barrage of very negative responses. This may have also influenced how I handled certain responses.

    I believe I understood the context in which you were using the word “survivor” to describe some of your experiences working within this oppressive “mental health” system. We have both been frontline witnesses to dehumanizing forms of trauma; this takes it toll on any person with a heart and a conscience.

    I know what it’s like to be way out on a limb (taking many risks) while working on the inside. We both have that in common, but I believe your particular struggle was far more intense than mine due to the fact that you were actually driven out of your job, and your career as a nurse was severely harmed.

    I know that all these experiences drives your intense passion and commitment to ending these major human rights violations. I have great respect for the content of your critique of the current paradigm and the effort you put into trying to advance our cause in the MIA discussions. We have way to much unity on these bigger questions to allow this particular discussion to stand in the way of working together as we move forward.

    I meant no disrespect to Humanbeing by not responding to her post suggesting that sexism may be at work within my blog and/or discussion. I chose not to take things in another contentious direction given how difficult the main line of discussion was progressing at that time. No one else decided to go in that direction at that time as well. This does not mean that the sexism issue is not worthy of future discussion.

    Katie, on a different note, please read the post by Allison Page on the benzo bill pending in the MA. state legislature. Consider offering testimony next Monday as a nurse. Maybe we could meet up at the proverbial barricades, so to speak, and do a little engagement with the system. I am planning on testifying about my experiences working in community mental health for 22 years and observing the damage done by benzodiazepines. While survivor testimony will be central to supporting this bill, our credentials and experience could be quite influential to the legislators hearing this testimony. I may discuss this more in my response to Meghan who raised major strategic issues in her recent comment.

    I hope we can all move forward with clearer air.
    All the best, respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Edward1

    Read Dr. Peter Breggin’s “Toxic Psychiatry” and Robert Whitiaker and Lisa Cosgrove’s “Psychiatry Under the Influence” where this fraud and corruption is clearly documented.

    These drugs are marketed and labeled as safe; there is very little to NO warnings about taking them longer than 2-4 weeks with time for a taper. The majority of benzo prescriptions (totaling almost 100 million in the U.S) are long term. Tens of thousands of people on internet forums searching for help (including many survivor accounts at MIA) would testify that they are NOT safe drugs and they have caused great harm in their life

    In the books I mentioned above there is documented evidence that Pfizer conducted 8 week studies to get FDA approval for Xanax; they deliberately neglected to reveal to the FDA the second 4 weeks of results in these studies. Guess why they failed to turn in the second 4 weeks; could it be that anxiety got worse for the subjects in the studies. You guessed it! Wouldn’t you call this a form of scientific corruption and fraud?

    We also know that the pharmaceutical industry has complete control over the studies they pay to have completed and notoriously do make public studies that are unfavorable to their drugs. Does this give you confidence and make you feel comfortable in defending Big Pharma?

    Then they spent billions (in collusion with the APA) promoting carefully crafted marketing campaigns (filled with distorted information) convincing organized medicine and the public that these drugs are both safe and effective for “treating” anxiety “disorders” and insomnia.

    Are they effective? Yes, extremely so in the short term. That is why they can be so dangerous outside of a controlled medical setting. Are there some positive uses for these drugs outside of a hospital type setting? Maybe, but I believe they are rare.

    Edward1, notice I didn’t use the word “add#%&*^%$” once in my response.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    It is you who has chosen to keep the negative energy a flowing at this time. And your above comment only continues to do so. Just when some more reconciling comments were occurring (several days ago) and people were prepared to move on, you decided to keep the pot stirring as Oldhead has pointed out.

    I don’t believe any of the principles engaged in this discussion would indicate that there is close to full agreement on these difficult and complex issues. Most of us acknowledged that there were some misunderstandings within the dialogue and that there are bigger forces at work responsible for all this harm being done. I believe people were prepared to move forward knowing that there needed to be future discussions down the road fleshing out more of the science and the road forward.

    I hope you apply some of your own words about negative energy in this discussion to your very first entry directed at me in the comment section. Which BTW, you did NOT address me by my name with an initial greeting. That by itself, since we had met in person before and corresponded by email, as well as, dialogued at MIA many times, felt very much like an initial form of distancing.

    Your opening words in that first volley were: “I still regard the *survivor* voice as the most credible– . Knee jerk assessments and criticisms of both the *scholarly efforts* and the *intentions* of J.Doe and Dr. Ashton were made here by Richard–…”

    When I challenged you to show proof that I criticized either the “scholarship” and “intention” of Dr. Heather Ashton or the “intentions” of J.Doe, you just moved on to other topics. You never owned any accountability for your inaccurate portrayal of my blog or the negativity that these kind of inaccuracies can actually promote in these discussions.

    And I would point out (and as I discussed in my long comment to Alex), yes, I did challenge and engage in political critique of the ideas (of J. Doe and others) related to both science and activist paths forward, However, I did NOT criticize or question the survivor narrative regarding harm done by benzos. In fact their particular narratives only REAFFIRMED AND DEEPENED my already existing understanding of the dangers of these drugs.

    You said in the above comment: “There are patterns of speaking or styles of writing as if speaking, that are loaded with negative energy. Not to mention buzz words and commonly understood innuendos that are condescending , patronizing and intimidating. When someone throws a penalty flag on these bad vibe producing comments, the energy will spiral downward until someone cries, “uncle””

    Given the dialogue that has already taken place AND where we are at in this current discussion, WHO exactly should we assume this comment is being directed at? Why would you want to continue with THIS kind of innuendo at THIS time?

    This kind of discussion (which I believe has some value) would be better served if it were brought up in a separate blog about how to engage (at MIA) in civil discourse and debate around issues of science, Psychiatry, and community, and of course, the way forward towards changing all this madness in the world that surrounds us.

    IMHO, time to move on regarding this part of the dialogue. If Edward1 wants to carry on his discussion, I believe that would be worthy of more discussion and debate, hopefully others would join in as well.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Alison

    Thank you for keeping us abreast of the progress on this bill.

    I am planning to attend this hearing and possibly testifying. I wasn’t aware that someone was using the Op Ed piece from the New Bedford Standard Times that I wrote a year ago. It is good to know that some people found it useful.

    If I testify I want to make sure that my testimony is respectful of the main aims of the legislation. So I will contact others to discuss the content of various people’s testimony prior to the hearing. If you have thoughts on this please contact me by email.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Edward1

    You said: “Nothing wrong with Big Pharma manufacturing and marketing their pills, so long as they don’t mislabel.. Big Pharma does not create addicts.”

    Big Pharma has consistently mislabeled their drugs, corrupted research studies, held back incriminating data, and conducted fraudulent PR campaigns to get their drugs FDA approved, and then spent billions to create a broad market for the prolific prescribing by doctors. How can you minimize the nature of these criminal acts?

    The way benzos and other psychiatric drugs have been developed and marketed is a more modern version of the thalidomide crisis that caused serious harm to a generation of young children many decades ago.

    You said: “It appears from your blog that everyone is aware of the adverse health effects of long-term reliance on benzos or any other psychotropic drugs–so be careful. Time to look inward not outward.”

    I don’t understand this comment. We are saying just the opposite. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of people are NOT aware of these dangers.

    And the process of “looking inward” is dialectically connected to looking “outward.” We must know the world better in order to change it.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Alex

    Thank you for those positive words. Even though we may have had a few differences over the last few years on a couple of topics, I’ve always found your story to be quite inspirational. And you are very passionate about your beliefs. I usually reply to everyone who takes the time to respond to my blogs, but I regret not responding to your prior posting about you sometimes not feeling safe at MIA related to the tone and content of various dialogues. That posting occurred after some very long and emotionally exhausting interchanges and I was tired and afraid to disrupt some of the reconciliatory atmosphere that was developing in our benzo discussion.

    However, your kind words have tweaked me enough to feel safe enough to proceed with this topic. The topic of “safety” at MIA, especially for survivors, is very sensitive and complicated. Here is how I view some of the complicated questions at hand relative to “safety.”

    I know that in some past blogs written by Sera Davidow (a self described survivor) that you have questioned, challenged, and criticize some of her views and stances that she has taken on several topics. Some of those exchanges were, at times, quite heated. Now perhaps you would say that in some of those situations she was questioning, challenging, and/or criticizing other survivors or their family members, so therefore you were justified in making all of your challenges. Nevertheless, I’m sure it was emotionally trying for her (just as it is for me and you) when someone either questions, criticizes, or occasionally, outright attacks something you have written.

    BTW, my raising this in no way means I believe you were wrong for raising any of your challenges to Sera or any one else. I am only trying to go deeper into the process of how we view and react to some of the dialogue (even the very contentious ones) at MIA and the issue of safety.

    Now, Sera, in my view, is a warrior in the best sense of the word, and she has been through many battles in her life. She is a great writer and critical thinker when it comes to deconstructing the current “mental health” paradigm of “treatment” and the culture that surrounds it. I have great respect for how she responds to almost everyone who comments on her blogs and how she does so with both great candor AND respect.

    Now, not to compare myself with Sera (we have very different backgrounds and stories and I’m not a survivor) but I have (at age 68) been through many political battles and contentious forms of theoretical and political struggle for over 40 years challenging various oppressive institutions, and been beaten and arrested a few times while engaging in this struggle.

    But given all my past battle experience you better believe my gut churns and my anxiety rises each and EVERY TIME someone responds to whatever I may have written here at MIA. And especially if my words are criticized, or even attacked, I am beside myself with fear that I may be wrong or that I may have hurt or harmed someone with my words. Perhaps, all of these similar physical and psychological reactions are greater in survivors than me due to prior psych drugging and trauma from this oppressive system; I am prepared to concede that point based on my knowledge of harm done. But I am trying to say that it ain’t easy for me; I am emotionally vulnerable too.

    The fear of being wrong is, of course, a defensive human reaction we all have when we are first being challenged in this way. This normal human reaction must be internally struggled against so that we can objectively evaluate what people are saying and sort out what needs to be accepted and learned from, and that which should be rejected and learned from only by negative example. Some of us have more difficulty moving out of the initial defensive mode than others. I would argue that staying in a defensive mode too long will disarm us and become a barrier to learning, and also from being able to conduct meaningful future dialogue.

    When it come to these feelings that I believe we ALL experience in some of the MIA dialogue, I am reminded about the current reality for middle and high school age teenagers these days who face this level of emotional responses to social media on a daily and often hourly basis everyday. Holy shit, what they must go through. With each picture or verbal posting they put online they desperately wait to see how their peers respond (like or dislike). Their emotional view of themselves and the world can be driven into the toilet in matter of minutes if they become too wrapped up in this form of communication and way of evaluating self worth and human purpose.

    So how do we get around this emotional and political dilemma at MIA. Many wise people have said “we must know the world better in order to change it.” How do we conduct meaningful dialogue that is advancing our understanding of the world and the people within it so we are better prepared to make transformative change that will improve the quality of life for all human beings? Big questions with no easy answers.

    The purpose and role of science is to know and understand the world better. Science appears at the heading next to the name of this website, Mad in America. Science has been in great contention throughout human existence. Early astronomers were put to death for daring to say that the earth was NOT the center of the universe. After all, if God, as the story goes, chose earth for the birth of his only begotten son, how could it NOT be the center of the universe. In many ways this scientific discovery about our solar system was a direct challenge to religious orthodoxy and those defending the status quo could not, and would not tolerate it.

    So my point is, if we are going to advance our scientific understanding of the world, and in this case the scientific issues surrounding Biological Psychiatry and the current “mental health” system, we must be prepared for some contentious struggles to occur. Science cannot advance without this happening. And if we don’t advance our science and actually know the world better than we will NOT be able to effectively change it.

    Alex, I believe this means we all have to learn how to thicken our skin in some of these discussions about science and the way forward in changing the world. We all must learn to get past that initial feeling of defensiveness we all feel and press on in the struggle. I don’t think there is any way around this conundrum we all face . If there is another way, please tell me what it is!?

    That being said, I do think there needs to be appropriate and civil standards of discourse at MIA. And when it comes to people sharing their survivor narrative stories we need to show the utmost respect. Even if some part of that story goes against our grain or belief system, I think it should be responded to in the most sensitive and delicate way or not responded to at all.

    However, I believe this significantly changes when a writer or commenter at MIA (survivor or not) begins to delve into the contentious area of science, or when they begin to propose a specific way forward (or challenge someone else’s proposal) to change the world based on their particular version of scientific understanding of the world at the time.

    For me this is fair game for a discussion and debate that may at times evolve into sharp differences of opinion or even criticism. Yes, we should be respectful in all these exchanges, but if we truly want to advance our understanding of the world there is NO WAY around the possibility that some people might become offended or even hurt because their ideas are being negatively critiqued.

    For many people in the world these are life and death issues being discussed. If we are not willing to take the risks of taking our lumps and/or making mistakes in the course of these struggles than I don’t believe we will truly want to change the world bad enough to actually make it happen.

    Years ago people died for talking about what they observed looking through a primitive telescope. Today, some people die for questioning religious dogma or wearing a hoodie or challenging the political status quo in some countries.

    Here at MIA we occasionally get our feelings hurt when our ideas are challenged or dismissed. Yes, sometimes there are personal attacks; they are usually moderated. But the rest of the time it is just us being defensive about possibly being wrong and being temporarily not liked by some of the MIA community. We all have to learn how to get through this because HOW ELSE are we going to advance science as part of knowing the world better in order to know how to change it.

    Community, also appears next to the heading of MIA. Our sense of community will constantly change and evolve in our future discourse on these difficult and contentious issues. Some people we feel closer with today may seem more distant from us as these discussions evolve and vice versa. My hope is that through this dialogue we will get closer to the truth and more unity will develop, thus we will all be more prepared for major systemic transformations of the world. While I believe there will be great joy in this overall process of human liberation, I also believe that the road will, at times, be quite tortuous. There is no other way.

    Alex, I don’t have a complete answer to this dilemma you describe, but I hope this provides some food for thought. Thanks for bring up the topic and commenting on my blog.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Edward1

    You said “…why this relentless demonization of big pharma and benzos… Big Pharma should be celebrated for providing us these ameliorative drugs…” Here you are also including opiate drugs like oxycontin.

    When an institution develops, promotes (with massive PR campaigns), and sells (for enormous profits) two categories of drugs that they deny can cause dependency and/or addiction, is this not a serious problem worthy of some serious forms of condemnation?

    Is this not a serious problem (and worthy of condemnation) when Psychiatry and the medical establishment prescribes these drugs with reckless impunity?

    Our society produces life conditions that give rise to high amounts of anxiety and chronic pain. These two categories of drugs are enormously effective in the short run for reducing these uncomfortable feelings. In the long run these drugs make these conditions worse for most people, creating conditions for an enormous amount of harm. Are you suggesting that there should be no controls in our society for how these drugs are promoted and prescribed?

    Just because you may not have misused these drugs or developed problems with them how can you deny that these drugs (with Big Pharma promotions and prolific prescribing by doctors) are not a serious problem in our society?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • FG

    Thank you for sharing more details about your particular story.

    I hope you decide to some day write your story for MIA. It is a unique and complicated story that challenges many standard preconceptions promoted by Biological Psychiatry and their Disease Model of Addiction. I also believe there are millions of people stuck in a similar version of your story; some who may believe they need to forever self identify as an “addict” and attend AA/NA for the rest of their life in order to arrest their “Disease.”

    As to my view of the concept of “bridging the divide,” I would say that some of that “bridging” has begun to occur in this discussion. All these concepts and definitions that either apply, or do not apply to some people’s lives, are very much in contention in many circles of people, both professional and among the broad masses.

    It is only among those people willing to discuss and debate these issues that we can ultimately achieve greater unity of understanding and purpose. Hopefully that “purpose” will be ending the harm done to all people damaged by the benzodiazepine crisis.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • J.Doe

    Thank you for coming back into the discussion and clarifying your perspective and intentions with your past blogs.

    I hope you believe that my intentions with my blog were in no way meant to discredit the value of your blog or your work for ID advocacy. I hope you write more on this topic at MIA and update us on ID advocacy and progress with the Ashton Syndrome. I promise I will ask for clarification on content meaning before I make any assumptions about what was included or not included in your next blog.

    In addition, I would also like to be more active in support of recognition of the Ashton Syndrome in my future activism. I believe my experience with addiction work can help clarify the differences (between ID and addiction) to those who still confuse them, professional or not.

    Out of this discussion I hope everyone appreciates the importance for all activists to make known to their audience that there is an understanding of the complexities and difficult nuances connected to benzo dependency and its intersection with addiction in some cases. I am not the only one who will ever raise these concerns as future advocacy work proceeds forward.

    Hopefully, this entire discussion has better prepared all of us to be more educated and prepared for future battles. I know I have learned a lot despite some of the uncomfortable tonality issues that arose at times.

    BTW, J.Doe mentioned not knowing how to use itlalics instead of caps for giving emphasis to certain words. Someone please tell me how this is done at MIA in the comment section.

    Onward in struggle, Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    Last November when J.Doe’s first two blogs came out and I began to explore a few of these issues in a very respectful manner within the discussion, I was surprised and unprepared for the amount of serious resistance to even broaching this topic. I did not have to create a “straw man” to know that a “divide” on this topic was very real.

    Others in the survivor community have revealed to me that similar issues go back further than I was aware of. Unfortunately there were some voices in the middle of these struggles that we never got to hear; maybe another time and place.

    I am saddened by the tone of much of this discussion and will have to reevaluate and reconsider where to go from here. I always appreciate your feedback even when we are not in complete agreement.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    In this particular discussion I have NOT focused on addiction but only devoted some partial attention to a secondary issue, and a segment of the benzo victim/survivor community where it is an interwoven factor in people’s lives that nobody else wanted to acknowledge or discuss.

    In some other blogs, yes, I have talked about and highlighted the fact that at least 30 % of the all the fatal opiate overdoses involve benzos, where it may be the decisive component in a deadly cocktail. Living in MA., we are acutely aware that this epidemic kills at least 3 people a day in our state. This is a tremendous indictment of the System and their prolific prescribing of opiates and benzos in our state. Nobody in the state is willing to address the benzo connection and the Dept. of Public health refused to even investigate my formal complaint with the state.

    So on April 5th in Boston there is a big conference titled “The Opioid Crisis: Thinking Outside the Box.” All the state leaders from the governor to DPH officials and probably several people from the media. I have statistics to prove that in some areas where there are hotspots of opiate overdoses there is also an extremely high number of benzo prescriptions.

    Guess what, I have my reserved seat and I plan to make some very loud and clear statements about the connections I mentioned above and expose exactly what institutions are directly responsible and complicit in these deaths, and demand to know what the state plans to do about it.

    Does this involve the issues of benzos and addiction. Yes, it certainly does. This is a tremendous opportunity to do exposure about everything that is wrong with this System. Given my experience with addiction work, the statistical information I have at my disposal, and the fact that the state refused to investigate my complaint (see my blog “Deafening Silence”) it would be morally irresponsible if I DIDNOT attend this conference and speak out on this issue. I should not be the ONLY ONE making noise at this conference.

    Because there is an addiction connection in this situation will this make it more difficult for others who are more focused on raising awareness around iatrogenic dependence issues? I think not, especially if we do our work in the right way and where possible describe the totality of the benzo crisis and ALL those affected.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • FG

    You stated: “… I can’t think of one person who would have been truly “harmed” by any kind of attempt to clearly differentiate between addiction and dependence.”

    I agree completely with this statement. I believe my current writings are absolutely supporting the distinction between “addiction” and physical “dependence.” Please show where I have not supported this distinction or attempted to downplay its importance.

    We cannot deny that (within the ranks of the people) there is a “divide” on understanding the underlying nature of these questions and what language to use when talking about them.

    I hope by talking about these issues openly we will all get clearer on how to move forward with all forms of advocacy.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    I have tremendous respect for the risks you have taken in your career and the depth with which you critique and expose the crimes of this system. If you read my blog “Deafening Silence” you will see how much more we have in common related to bearing witness to trauma and attempting to expose it. I think you know from our past conversations and the content of my blogs and related commentary that the overwhelming focus of my writing have been exposing this System from the broadest and most thoroughgoing perspective.

    I believe we can all respectfully debate and discuss issues among ourselves when necessary. Part of my reasons for even bringing up some things lacking in the I.D. advocacy was to seek ways to STRENGTHEN that movement as part of something much larger. Based on the totality of my work here at MIA do you actually question my motivations to raise these issues?

    BTW, I did read most of the article by Laurie Oakley on Pharmaceutical Rape. I thought her analysis was a very sound and quite radical. I have no problems with her use of the rape analogy to describe the inappropriate use of pharmaceuticals. She discouraged the application of her analysis to forced treatment. I still think it is appropriate to use “mind rape” when discussing forced treatment, and especially forced drugging.

    My issue with how J.Doe used the analogy was to bring in some commonly accepted cultural prejudices regarding how addiction is perceived and understood. I don’ t believe this is the best way to draw a distinction between “iatrogenic dependence” and “addiction.”

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    You stated: “I.D advocacy does NOT harm those Richard is labeling as primarily *addiction*– but focusing on *addiction* certainly does harm to the I.D. victims– …”

    You have either misunderstood my blog or you are making things up. Neither the purpose of my blog nor its content was to discuss or label any group as being “primarily addiction.” Nor have I EVER said or implied that we focus on “addiction.”

    Nearly the first half of my blog was promoting “I.D advocacy” which you’ve implied that I downplayed. The second part of my blog was introducing and exploring a discussion of the intersection of “iatrogenic benzo dependence” and “addiction.”

    To the best of my knowledge this topic has not been discussed in any thorough way at MIA, except briefly by me in a discussion under J.Doe’s “Don’t Harm Them Twice” Part 2. In this particular context this discussion was not only discouraged but considered to be unscientific and disruptive.

    How does exploring and furthering our scientific and social understanding of a real life phenomena (the intersection of iatrogenic benzo dependence and addiction) harm “I.D. victims?” Doesn’t increasing our scientific understanding of the world only benefit humanity by enhancing our ability to change the world?

    The more deeply and completely we understand the totality (in a scientific way) of the benzo crisis the better armed we will be to promote activism and solutions for the future.

    The public perception of these issues is already engrained with the outlook of Disease-based thinking, cultural prejudices, and misunderstandings of issues related to physical dependency and addiction. We have to prove we understand BOTH the differences between these phenomena and also how they intersect in the real world. OTHERWISE, people will not believe we know what we are talking about or be willing to support our advocacy work.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    You stated:
    “What term best describes the desire for a desired effect of an action to continue to be predictably pleasurable ?
    “Relief of *medical* symptoms v. *mood manipulation *– what does it matter WHY you continue to take benzps– the result is the same– drug tolerance develops, physical addiction is noted upon discontinuing the drug-; CONTINUING to take benzos, and especially increasing the dose for either medical or mood effect is DANGEROUS.”

    I believe that J.Doe (and now I, as well) would disagree with your above characterization and use of the word “addiction.” One of the main points in Part 1 of J.Doe’s “Don’t Harm Them Twice” blog (that must be supported) is that there IS and NEEDS to be a clear scientific distinction made between “physical dependency” and “addiction.” So your use of “physical addiction” in the above context is a misuse of the term “addiction” when you are dealing with iatrogenic benzo dependence.

    While the definition of “addiction” is controversial and much debated, it does (in my view) involve a clear connection to certain cognitive thought patterns that might involve compulsivity and impulsivity. For some they may continue use of a substance with impunity without making many direct connections to the negative consequences of the behavior.

    In other more common circumstances someone experiences cognitive dissonance over whether or not to continue a certain behavior based on some recognition that the costs may out weigh the benefits of continued use. Yet, they have not yet developed the control systems necessary to break the deeply engrained habitual behavior and this may be compounded by desperately wanting to avoid the discomfort of withdrawal effects.

    Therefore the “WHY” of continued use in this distinction between “physical dependence” and “addiction” is important scientifically and practically when it comes to diagnosing and treating the problem. This is especially true if someone seeks out the drug for a psychological “high” and/or is attracted to the “numbing effects” of the drug in order to better cope with an uncomfortable reality around them.

    To imply “drug seeking” or a “WHY” of “mood manipulation” type behaviors towards strictly “iatrogenic benzo dependent people is harmful because it completely misunderstands the true nature of their condition (physical dependency withdrawal) and is usually followed up with harmful protocols of “treatment” ie., misdiagnosis, inappropriate rehabs, rapid tapers etc. etc.

    Where it become more complicated is when someone is both iatrogenically dependent on benzos and ALSO has some type of addiction problem. Here it is important that those providing treatment understand BOTH problems, including working on the cognitive front with those experiencing compulsivity and impulsivity in their thought patterns.. These people may even be even more prone to rapid tapers as soon as their addiction problem or history is discovered by a doctor or caregiver.

    This is the area that I believe was neglected by J.Doe in her writings and there was an implication by its absence and also in the way addiction was discussed (both in her blogs, and especially in subsequent discussions) that there was no intersection in people’s lives between “iatrogenic dependence” and “addiction.” I believe it was necessary and important to raise these issues, even if it meant questioning some secondary ideas presented by a survivor.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    You said: “Knee jerk assessments and criticisms of both the *scholarly efforts* and the *intentions* of J.Doe and Dr. Ashton were made here by Richard…”

    How can you make this statement? I never questioned ANYTHING stated or done by Dr. Heather Ashton; just the opposite. I have been aware of her critically important work for over 20 years and used some of her quotes from various writings, and from the Ashton inspired website Benzo.org.UK, to back up my point that she embraced those suffering from addiction and seem to understand (and address) the intersection of “iatrogenic benzo dependence” with “Addiction” in both her clinical work and her writings.

    While I have raised some secondary criticisms of some secondary issues that I believe were dealt with in a one-sided or incomplete way by J.Doe, I have NEVER questioned her “intentions.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    You said: “I still regard the *survivor* voice as the most credible… as I find authoritative statements made that discredit the authentic voice of a” survivor” — unacceptable. ”

    Based on prior conversations with you, and having read many of your comments over the past few years, I am presuming that you are a non-survivor like me, in that you first became a radical activist against Biological Psychiatry and “mental health” system by seeing it in daily action while working INSIDE the system. If this is true, based on your comment above you believe we both have no right to EVER question or expound upon the ideas put forth by survivors. If this is your view than we might has well end this dialogue right now for it is a pointless discussion – for we have no right to speak unless it is only to validate everything stated within the survivor community.

    I do respect the views of survivors very much and have learned an enormous amount of knowledge from reading personal stories and other blogs by survivors. In my current blog I called J.Doe’s theoretical work and activism a “game changer.” Over the past few years I have written possibly a dozen blogs and I don’t believe any of them come close to being called a “game changer,” that is in reference to the power of their influence in making a significant contribution to science or changing medical policy. So I have clearly given J.Doe and her supporters high kudos for their work and activism.

    Even though I have been a critic of Biological Psychiatry for 25 years, I did not dare (4 years ago) to even comment on this website for many months until I had read numerous psychiatric survivor personal accounts and blogs. We all have a stake in ending this criminal system and survivors are now, and destined to in the future, playing a key leadership role in ending it.

    Since I believe we can and must (as non-survivors) respectfully participate in these discussions to arrive at a better understanding of the truth and find transformative solutions for ending this madness, I WILL continue responding to your posts.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • YvonnePaige

    If someone had simply read the first half of my blog they would have concluded that its main (and only) purpose was to advocate for support of the Ashton Syndrome. Here I will repeat a few quotes from that part of my blog:

    “As someone who has been a longtime critic of the Disease-based medical model, and involved in addiction support work for over twenty years, I found J. Doe’s new document both illuminating and challenging. This work is definitely a “game changer” and will forever change the way myself and others use the language related to issues of drug dependency and addiction.”

    “Everyone owes a great debt to the important contributions that J. Doe and others have made in carrying forward the torch of pioneers like Dr. Heather Ashton. Today, J. Doe and others are calling for the recognition of a newly identified medical condition related to iatrogenic benzodiazepine dependence, called “The Ashton Syndrome.” Their long term goal is “…to educate medical providers about the complexities of iatrogenic benzodiazepine dependence and how it differs from addiction, abuse, or substance abuse disorders (SUD) so that it is treated as a legitimate medical problem as opposed to a behavioral issue.” We all must learn from, respect, and support J. Doe and other’s efforts to change both the language and the harmful treatment “That Harms Them Twice,” as well as, support their advocacy for recognition of the Ashton Syndrome.”

    YvonnePaige, I don’t know how I could be any clearer than this.

    If you will take the time to reread my blog you will see that I was attempting (in addition to supporting the Ashton Syndrome) to question a secondary and counter occurring theme that was present in Part 2 of J.Doe’s original document “Don’t Harm Them Twice”; a theme that also played out in a sometimes contentious discussion that took place under the blog.

    In this discussion there was some concerns (raised by a few people) about about how addiction and those caught up in it were being characterized with certain language (a few phrases) and use of analogies that may have contained some potentially prejudicial aspects.

    Since both Part 1 and 2 of J.Doe’s long and extensive writing on the subject of iatrogenic benzo dependence failed to mention ANY of the intersecting issues with addiction (which includes other drugs, but ALSO singularly with benzos themselves) I raised a few initial concerns and began to pose a few of those connections in that blog discussion. I raised those concerns only after making it perfectly clear that I understood and supported the advocacy for the Ashton Syndrome.

    If you will reread the discussion under Part 2 of that blog you will see elements of the “Divide” that I make reference to, and you will see that ANY discussion of the intersecting issues of “addiction” with “iatrogenic benzo dependence” was viewed by some as hostile to their advocacy and somehow subverting the discussion. This was NOT the intention at all; it was only meant to clarify and broaden the discussion.

    In that discussion J.Doe made the following response to some of the secondary issues I respectfully attempted to pose in that blog discussion:

    “I think you’re comparing apples and oranges here, Richard. You’re mixing two COMPLETELY different topics together and attempting to muddy the waters which I don’t think is helpful at all.
    “People who abuse pain meds and then toss in benzos (alcohol, other drugs, anything they can get their hands on) to make their high better (and then sometimes go on to become heroin addicts) have absolutely NOTHING to do with what this article is about- which is iatrogenic illness from AS PRESCRIBED benzodiazepine use. YES, we should wall off these issues b/c they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.”

    It was out of this contentious discussion (referenced above) that the idea came about to further explore the complicated issues of “iatrogenic benzo dependence” and “addiction” and how similar discussions might be playing out within the benzo victim survivor community, and what this all means for the future activism taking on the benzo crisis.

    One point to consider in this discussion is that sometimes when certain people use addiction language to describe their relationship with benzos (in other words, how benzos are interwoven into the thoughts and behaviors of their lives) they are describing an all too real reality. They should not apologize or somehow hold back from using that language if it accurately applies to them.

    Yes, this may be a very different reality than those people who ONLY suffer from iatrogenic dependence. Obviously in these circumstances addiction language should be challenged and discouraged for all the reasons that J. Doe and other have posited.

    The “bridge” referred to in my blog is alluding to the fact that many people (addicted or not) came into their own benzo crisis through the result of inappropriate prescribing by Psychiatry(in collusion with Big Pharma) and organized medicine. And they all may have started out taking these drugs AS PRESCRIBED, and first suffered from some form of iatrogenic benzo dependence that may, or may not, have led to other conditions, including poly-pharmacy and/or addiction.

    For many the “bridge” will only comprise seeking support for surviving and overcoming the “living hell” of dependency and withdrawal from those people or groups they are connected to (addiction issues or not).

    Others may choose to take their plight beyond mear survival. In this situation the “bridge” in no way REQUIRES unity of understanding and purpose in the benzo crisis, but it does create the material conditions for that possibility in the future as more people heal and become more educated and politically aroused around this issue. It is this kind of unity and activism (by ALL those damaged) that will most likely get us closer to the day when these kinds of human rights violations will finally be ended once and for all.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I agree. Read any internet forum/discussion by starting with the name of the drug, for example, Zoloft. Eight out of ten people will describe rapid weight gain. Metabolic disease is also a definite result of neuroleptic drugs..

    If we look at charts over the last 3 decades for statistics on obesity, diabetes, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and of course, overall disability rates – they all parallel the rise in the use of all categories of psychiatric drugs. There is a definite connection here.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BPDT

    Thanks for reconsidering your comments.

    We cannot forget that it was not too long ago that Bill Cosby was often lecturing the Black community about taking responsibility for crime in their community, fatherless families, poverty etc. This was just another version of “pull yourself up by the bootstraps.” And of course it was TOTALLY letting off the hook the fact that there is an oppressive System and a class of people who benefit by having Black people and other oppressed sectors of society living at the bottom of the pyramid.

    It also ignored the history of slavery and all the other physical and psychological roadblocks standing in the way of people being able to take charge of their lives and be able to live a decent life. We can draw similar parallels with how Biological Psychiatry has enslaved the public’s mind regarding all their so-called “medicines” and forms of “treatment.”

    BPDT, yes, if I am sitting down one to one with a person (in counseling or otherwise) I will always urge people to take more responsibility to become educated and find particular ways to rise above all the roadblocks before them. Just as I would hope they would try to motivate me as well if I needed such prodding.

    But in a public discussion forum or political discussion about these broader issues of oppression (in any form) I would NEVER EVER say that the masses have even one iota of responsibility for that which has enslaved them.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Barry

    Thank you for your comment and for your tireless years of activism in confronting the benzo crisis.

    “J.Doe is absolutely correct, in that iatrogenic benzodiazepine drug dependency needs to be universally recognised in it’s own right.”

    I agree. As my blog indicates, I am in full support of recognition of the Ashton Syndrome and I will continue to support those efforts in any way that I can in the future.

    “The 1988 Committee on Safety of Medicines Guidelines on benzodiazepine drugs which recommended they be prescribed for 2 to 4 weeks only has been breached with impunity by the medical profession.”

    I remember first reading about Heather Ashton and the 1988 committee guidelines in the mid to late 1990’s. It is amazing to consider the complete disconnect from what those medical experts warned at the time and what actually was taking place in every day medical practice. It reveals the unbridled power that Big Pharma, Psychiatry, and organized medicine have been granted to be able to completely ignore these guidelines for 18 years. The amount of harm done in the name of profit and power interests is truly mind boggling.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BPDT and others

    Amending my above comment regarding “responsibility” for the benzodiazepine crisis, we need to start with targeting the pharmaceutical industry, and then on to Psychiatry and organized medicine.

    As documented in Robert Whitaker and Lisa Cosgrove’s book, Psychiatry Under the Influence, they spent billions of dollars with major marketing campaigns and corrupted research regarding “anxiety disorders” and the therapeutic value of their drugs.

    First they wanted to win over the minds of the doctors and appeal to their guild interests, and then it was on to the public. We cannot underestimate just how much their billion dollar efforts have influenced every nook and cranny of the way people look about their own problems and how pills are the “magic bullets” targeting the “chemical imbalances.”

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but we should never forget how vulnerable we were before we had that experience and discovered our new insights.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BPDT

    Specifically on the issue of “responsibility”:
    As you are now a highly educated person from two schools, including the “school of hard knocks,” it is much easier for you (and many others) to talk about all of us needing to take more responsibility for our choices. Yes, there is an important element of truth in your point, but here I believe we must firmly come down on the side of placing responsibility and blame on Psychiatry and organized medicine in general.

    You might want to check out Philip Hickey’s blog titled “Blame the Clients” http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/06/blame-clients/ In this blog he engages with the Therapy First psychiatrist (Dr.Hassman) who comments here a lot and you yourself have taken him on many times. This doctor tries to place the blame on his patients/clients for wanting the drugs. Here is part of Hickey’s response:

    ” People who deal in illegal drugs make no pretense that their products are medications. For psychiatrists, however, this is their primary marketing tool. For decades, they and their pharmaceutical allies have promoted this fiction using every means at their disposal. Very few psychiatrists have distanced themselves to a significant degree from this position.

    They have spread the seductive deception that virtually all significant problems of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving are caused by neurochemical imbalances which can be corrected only by ingesting their products. They have issued, and continue to issue, dire warnings as to the consequences of not taking these pills. They have persuaded parents that their children’s brains are impaired, and that even toddlers need to take the pills. And so on. The whole sordid tale has been exposed many times, but psychiatry, without a hint of shame or compunction, continues to spread this self-serving and destructive deception. In fact, at the present time, psychiatry, as represented by the World Psychiatric Association and the American Psychiatric Association, is actively working to improve its tarnished image with a view to expanding its market even further.

    So, Dr. Hassman is probably correct when he writes that some clients do come to psychiatrists to obtain drugs, and are resistant to alternative suggestions. But I think there’s a bigger issue:

    A steady stream of individuals, of all ages and from all walks of life, coming to psychiatrists for drugs is precisely the objective towards which the psychiatric leadership and vast majority of the rank and file have worked diligently for the past fifty years.

    It wasn’t the customers who invented and disseminated the term “a chemical imbalance, just like diabetes.” And, it wasn’t the customers who wrote and expanded the DSM to provide an impression of legitimacy for the drug-pushing activity. That was psychiatry!”

    More food for thought, Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Thanks so much for your very thoughtful comment. And I am glad you brought more attention to the issue of Disease-based labeling that has origins in DSM III.

    I believe that the Disease Concept of Addiction has origins that go a bit further back than Biological Psychiatry’s domination of the “mental health” system. There was efforts in the past to try to counter the view that addiction problems were some type of “moral failure.” Of course we know now that these psychiatric labels are completely spurious and that “biological/disease type explanations only increase “stigma.”

    Thanks again for commenting; I was hoping you would come in on this topic.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Humanbeing

    I have read many of your comments and am familiar with part of your story. Your particular story has made a strong case supporting the need for recognizing the Ashton Syndrome and for typifying a whole segment of the benzo community who are ONLY iatrogemically dependent on benzos.

    By bringing up the fact that there are others in this broad community whose addiction issues are inter-connected to their dependence on benzos, should NOT in any way detract from recognizing and supporting your efforts for obtaining appropriate care and overall justice.

    I have attempted in my writings to fairly and extensively bring light to the tremendous harm these drugs do to ALL people.

    I still believe that J Doe’s analogy about “cleaning fluids” is not useful in this discussion and breaks down in the ways I stated in an above posting.

    I wish you the best and appreciate your willingness to challenge my views.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • The_Cat

    Thanks for commenting on my blog. I find your use of sarcasm, personal stories, and your insights about addiction and what is wrong with Disease-based theories dominating most addiction care, to be quite educational, and often funny.

    Just so you know I was thinking of all your comments when I wrote the following paragraph:

    “People who participate in 12-Step Programs are not an impervious monolith. There are widely divergent views within these recovery groups, and this includes some people who openly criticize aspects of the Disease Concept of Addiction and the more rigid “single blueprint” approaches to recovery. For these more open minded AA/NA attendees, their lives more closely embody the philosophy in the oft-repeated cliché that makes perfect sense in these situations, “take what you need and leave the rest.” The growth over the past few decades of important alternatives to 12-Step Programs, such as Rational Recovery, Women for Sobriety, and Smart Recovery etc, reveals a very unsettling reality facing people with addiction problems in our society; that is, the current Medical Model has no viable or highly successful solutions for their life’s dilemma.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BPDT

    Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog. I wish you were more engaged with this subject because I do believe the benzo crisis, in all its forms, cuts to the core of everything that is wrong with the “System.”

    I also believe it has the potential (because of how widespread the damage spreads) to “blow open” the cover that surrounds Biological Psychiatry and their domination of today’s “mental Health” system. You were very fortunate to have at least escaped the “benzo blues,” though I know from reading parts of your story that you experienced the System’s wrath in other ways.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • J. Doe

    I am saddened that this discussion has come down to questioning my motives or intent, and more or less labeling me as some kind of “outsider.” I don’t know what official credentials or “street cred” I need in order to write about the benzo crisis and about trying to find ways of uniting people in this battle. I have not “twisted” your words or intent. I am sure if we had an actual face to face discussion identifying those who might be targeted as our so-called “enemies” in this struggle, our passion and hatred towards those people (and the institutions they run) would closely match levels of intensity.

    I have been nothing but supportive and respectful in my comments towards your work going back to your first blog last November. In the discussion following Part 2 of “Don’t Harm Them Twice” I began to raise a few issues and concerns regarding the intersection of “iatrogenic benzo dependence” and “addiction” in the lives of some people. At the time I did not have a worked out perspective; I was just trying to explore some broader issues.

    If you reread your response to me here http:www.madinamerica.com/2015/11/language-surrounding-benzodiazepines-part-ii/#comment-78652 , you will see that this is where the tone of this discussion took a bad turn. In that comment you yelled at me for attempting to “muddy the waters” and said that I was “mixing two COMPLETELY different topics.” Here is more of your response:

    “I think you’re comparing apples and oranges here, Richard. You’re mixing two COMPLETELY different topics together and attempting to muddy the waters which I don’t think is helpful at all.
    “People who abuse pain meds and then toss in benzos (alcohol, other drugs, anything they can get their hands on) to make their high better (and then sometimes go on to become heroin addicts) have absolutely NOTHING to do with what this article is about- which is iatrogenic illness from AS PRESCRIBED benzodiazepine use. YES, we should wall off these issues b/c they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.”

    It was in this contentious dialogue that I first introduced the phrase that there is not an “impenetrable wall” between the issues of “iatrogenic benzo dependence” and “addiction.” As I tried to further explain my concerns another supporter of your position stated that I was “subverting” the discussion. It was even more clear to me during these moments that there, indeed, was a serious “divide” on these issues that somehow needed to be addressed in the future.

    I have been thinking deeply on this subject for more than three months and going back over your previous blogs and other source material. It took me three weeks to actually write the blog, and after consulting with several people, including some benzo victim/survivors, this is what I finally came up with.

    So I hope the tone of our dialogue can improve. I also hope you can at least acknowledge that there is a “benzo divide” and be more open to exploring ways to overcome misunderstandings and issues that may be divisive within the ranks of those who need to become active in finally achieving true medical safety and ultimate justice in the benzo crisis.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • J. Doe

    You make the following comment about my proposed categories of people harmed by benzodiazepine:

    “1.People who have had no history or connection to substance abuse or addiction

    2. People who have had a prior history of substance abuse and are in a current state of abstinence

    3. People currently abusing or misusing other mind altering or addictive substances, including opiates
    4. People whose iatrogenic dependence on benzos was a contributing factor to them evolving into abuse patterns with other substances such as alcohol, or a relapse back into addiction with a past “drug of choice,”
    All of the above, in my opinion, can still constitute iatrogenic dependence. It’s irrelevant if people have a past/current history of addiction/abuse of drugs if they are not abusing their benzo currently and they took them as directed by their doctor.”

    J.Doe, this is precisely my point about how “iatrogenic benzo dependence” can be the BEGINNING point for later problems where benzo use may EVOLVE into something more related to addictions. It is NOT “irrelevant if people have a past/current history of addiction/abuse of drugs.” Here you are again downplaying how this connection to addiction can occur.

    There is a definite connection for some people in #’s 2) and 4) where benzo use is a causative factor in compounding addiction issues. It is commonly known in addiction circles that benzo prescriptions given to a person who had a former problem with alcohol may have been a “triggering” aspect to their relapse. Both benzos and alcohol are in the sedative hypnotic family and use of either drug may activate similar pathways in the brain, including memory of positive and negative effects of these drugs.

    We can’t underplay the fact that benzos are prescribed all the time to people with current problems with alcohol and opiates. Some actively seek out these prescriptions knowing the synergistic effects of increasing their “high” but others have NO IDEA how these benzo prescriptions will further complicate and accelerate their current addiction issues.

    J.Doe, you said when discussing Stevie Nicks: “… it IS possible for people to be iatrogenically dependent on benzos/psych meds, and not get thrown back into active addiction w their prior “drug of choice”. ”

    I have never denied this or somehow said that benzo prescriptions alwayss cause addiction to occur or always compounds existing addiction issues. I am ONLY saying that we must take into consideration, in all our advocacy around the benzo crisis, that millions of people who have addiction issues are also harmed by benzos (in multiple ways) and should be part of our base of organizing activism.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • J.Doe

    Your above characterization of my GENERAL statement about how we should describe and take on the benzo issue is unfair. You know that I understand and support people’s right to safe tapering protocols. Here I was only making note of a more general future stance about safe prescribing and benzos additional connections with addiction.

    In my blog (and other writings) I have made it clear numerous times that I support the NEED AND NECESSITY for doctors to step forward and take the responsibility (and risks) for helping with micro-tapering regimens for those people harmed by benzos – addiction issues or not.

    In fact, I would propose that in any legislation we advocate for on the benzo issue we should also demand that ALL insurance companies (including Medicaid and Medicare) cover the costs of using compounding pharmacies to help people with their micro-tapering protocols.

    In my past blog titled “Benzodiazepines: Psychiatry’s Weakest Link” I clearly discussed this issue when I stated the following:

    “we must be very careful not to allow the spotlight in the benzo crisis to somehow focus on the millions of people who are tragically dependent on these drugs through no fault of their own. … At the same time we must be aware that people using benzodiazepines on a regular basis have great fear (and for good reason) that they could run out of or be denied access to these drugs by doctors who often betray and/or abandoned them. Given the horrible effects of withdrawal symptoms, those people dependent on benzos might be afraid that all of this attention we raise about the dangers of this category of drug could make it more difficult for them to both access the drugs and/or safely (over a long period of time) taper off of them. For this reason, we must include, in all our political exposure on this issue, specific demands that the people damaged by benzodiazepines need to be given compassionate help and the very best that science and medicine can provide in order to aid them in overcoming dependency problems.”

    Richard

    I

    Report comment

  • J Doe

    Thank you for engaging in this discussion.

    I need to point out again that I have been (in my past comments and current writings) a big supporter and advocate for your work in seeking recognition for the “Ashton Syndrome” and for the education and scientific clarity you have brought to the table regarding the difference between “iatrogenic dependence” and “addiction.” I have repeatedly said that understanding this difference could be life affirming and life saving for some people. The recreated stories you provided are living examples of how people can be “harmed twice” if labeled as an “addict” due to the malpractice of improper prescribing of benzos.

    I believe that if people are EVER going to understand (through education and political activism over a considerable period of time) the difference between “iatrogenic dependence” and “addiction” then they can ALSO understand that when it comes to benzos these issues are complicated and do intersect in many people’s lives. I don’t believe that totally separating them off advances your/our cause in the way you project it will.

    In the end people will have to come to understand that Big Pharma and Psychiatry are doing great harm to people and can’t be trusted because of their massive drugging of the public with dangerous drugs passed off as “medications.” Anyone that begins to come to this understanding will also understand how benzo prescribing not only causes iatrogenic physical dependency but also exacerbates and/or causes some addiction problems.

    You said: “Everyone already (for the most part- and incorrectly) equates benzodiazepine use with addiction. So, that problem is already recognized.”

    I am not so sure that is true. I believe that Big Pharma and the APA still hold sway in convincing most of the public that benzos are a “safe and helpful medication” for “treating” anxiety and sleep problems and that only a small minority of people have problems or abuse them. Recently there has been more publicity about the dangers but this is only beginning to surface connected to a few stories such as your own, and related to prescription drug and/or heroin overdoses.

    You stated :” …we feel this iatrogenic dependence alone (separate from addiction/the “grey areas”) needs [to be] recognized so that the people who fall ONLY in the iatrogenically dependent category aren’t harmed twice. ”

    Please don’t forget that people who have some aspect of addiction in their life AND are inappropriately prescribed benzos are ALSO “harmed twice.” In this case, while the label of addiction may have some meaning, their lives are now complicated by the added physical dependency to a new substance that will only accelerate their other problems with different substances. So it all starts with inappropriate prescribing (never should have been prescribed and/or went beyond 2-4 weeks) and then secondary or third level harm ensues, this includes being yanked of their benzos or too fast tapers.

    You said: “There are REAL harms from getting this wrong (it’s not just semantics) and legitimate reasons why there is a desire to distance the iatrogenic dependence cause from addiction to avoid the harms from persisting.”

    As I said to Ally above, this “distancing” has real life consequences in dividing off people who have far more in common than differences as to the origin of their problem – big corporations and medical guilds putting profit and power above the needs of the people. Combining ALL the ways benzos harm the public stands the best chance to blow this struggle wide open for all to see and understand in all its forms and complexities.

    You said: “…if you don’t expose the iatrogenic dependence problem as distinct and separate, many people aren’t going to know they’re at risk. People will hear addiction and (wrongly) think they’re “safe” b/c they were prescribed by their doctor and that so long as they don’t abuse them, they will be OK. And nothing could be further from the truth.”

    Why can’t we just state the truth that these drugs are not safe outside of a hospital setting (with possible rare exceptions) and should not be prescribed to anyone, addiction problem or not. And if they have addiction issues it will all become even worse, if not deadly.

    As to your analogy regarding the selling of harmful cleaning fluids (declared safe) that are used normally in the home by some people and “inhaled” to get high by others. This analogy breaks down as you describe it when you take into consideration that some people who originally acquired the cleaning fluids for its intended purposes and used it according to its directions MAY eventually (over time) recognize its intoxicating effects and inhale it to get high OR the inhalation of the fluid through normal use exacerbates and already existing addiction they have with other substances; hence making their addiction problems worse or even leading to fatal overdose.

    J.Doe I believe I have been quite fair and comprehensive in my analysis because I have also clearly targeted the Disease-based theorists, including those dogmatists in 12-Step programs, that want to put all benzo dependents in an “addiction box.” A box that demands you “admit you are powerless” and profess your need “to work The Program the rest of your life” or relapse and die. You have every right to be angry at this kind of dogma and zealotry that will only make your problems worse.

    I would say this: just as you have so skillfully and comprehensive deconstructed all that is wrong with how organized medicine has confounded and confused the concepts of “physical dependency” and “addiction” you can do the same with the Diseased-based theorists and faithful followers who want to turn everyone into an “addict.”

    Of course we ALL can be an “addict” in the right (or perhaps, wrong, makes more sense) environment and we can all leave our addiction issues (if we have them) behind if we change some of our thinking and gravitate to a healthier environment.

    The bottom line in all this is how do we find ways to come together knowing who our potential friends are (overcoming any divisions within our ranks) and collectively learning exactly who and what is harming us so we can better organize appropriate resistance.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Alli

    Thanks for engaging on this very sensitive and difficult topic.

    By writing this article I am trying to both acknowledge that that a “divide” does exist (and has existed for several years) within the benzo community on this topic AND I am suggesting some ways we can look at these issues that might work towards “bridging the benzo divide,” or at least open up more dialogue.

    I have acknowledged that there IS a distinctly different definition between “Iatrorgenic dependence” and “addiction” and that this distinction DOES matter for victim/survivors, especially those who have no addiction issues in their lives.

    However, rapid tapers (or being yanked off completely) will also harm those people who also have addiction issues in their life. Many of these people may have no understanding or concept of how their dependence on benzos is damaging them or adding major complications to a life that is already spinning out control around multiple issues.

    Yes, some people who have only iatrogenic dependence on benzos do inter-dose (or even increase their dose) NOT out of addiction for the reasons you stated.

    However, for a certain subset of people benzos fit all the definitions of addiction, including the “mind games” that people end up playing regarding costs/benefits of the drug. There first use of that drug may have started out as “Iatrogenic dependence” and then developed into addiction.

    MIA just recently carried a tragic story of a movie producer who ended up allegedly committing suicide at a rehab in Florida. Read the story here “Delray Beach: Xanax, Addiction, and Death” http://www.,madinamerica.com/2016/02/732331/. Some quotes from this person in the story described a clear addictive relationship with the drug. This can be far more complicated with other people who are prescribed these drugs while they may be struggling with some type of addiction issue. And the man in this story, I believe, was also harmed by the dominance of Disease-based thinking that controls nearly all the rehabs in this country. It is sad and frustrating that this victim and his family may have never known that his addiction problems started out as iatrogenic dependence.

    In these situations it may be very difficult to differentiate between “iatrogenic dependence” and “addiction” with benzo, but perhaps relatively easy to say they have a problem with say alcohol or opiates or some other drug.

    Ally, you said: “unity isn’t the main motivation of people who are in survival mode…”

    I believe I understand this point and I am not suggesting that people in the middle of withdrawal, or those trying to heal from this process, can run out and become activists.

    I was questioning some of the content of J Doe’s two part series (and the discussion that followed under the blog) that came out last November. These were very scholarly presentations of the issue and were clearly intended to have an activist call to action aspect to their publication. And they were published on MIA where this is a theme that is part of the intention of some bloggers and commenters who participate here.

    I believe it is fair for me to question some of the secondary arguments that were either included in J Doe’s blog or important issues that were confusing or left out. They are all part of understanding the totality of the benzo crisis.

    Some people may not want to be activists (or cannot be at this time because they are in survival mode) but if we are going to take on the entirety of the benzo crisis we need to address “contradictions among the people” (which was a phrase from the 60’s) that interfere with a more unified approach to uniting ALL people harmed by benzos.

    When looking at where the benzo crisis came from and the powerful institutions involved who are responsible for destroying people’s lives, I believe all its victims/survivors have more in common than differences. And yes, there are some differences but how do we best advance the cause of all those harmed; that is one question being discussed here.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    Brilliant!!! This made my day and has filled me with joy and laughter.

    If I lived in Britain, I would, without a doubt, being passing this essay out at every medical school I could find. Please, someone on the other side of the Pond , organize some cadre to pass reams of these out at all the schools. I, personally, will contribute to a fund to make this happen.

    And while your at it, why not organize and advertise “A Bashers’ Ball” in the all the towns where the schools are located; let’s celebrate the future demise and withering away of Psychiatry – the sooner the better.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Amber and Mariaelena

    What came to my mind immediately while reading this conversion was the whole concept of the “market place of ideas.”

    All of these experiences discussed are taking place in the context of a profit based economic and political system. It is so unfortunate that education, science, and medicine are all controlled and influenced in every negative way possible by the bottom line of profit.

    How unfortunate and sad that people are forced to make important decisions about intellectual pursuits and scientific exploration based on the fear of not having (or keeping) a job because their ideas and proposals may challenge the powerful economic and political interests of those propping up the status quo.

    There is a theme and/or emotional undercurrent that permeates this rich discussion related to the fear of reprisal and the basic need to survive in a competitive and harsh world. In this case an academic world that is so reflective of fundamental class conflict in the capitalistic based “market place of ideas.”

    Big Pharma and the elites controlling Psychiatry and “Mental Health” academia are functioning like the “Gestapo” when it comes to how we can think and behave, especially if it might lead to influencing broader numbers of people. This is happening in all areas of academia where the exchange of ideas and related publishing endeavors are heavily influenced by a most fundamental form of class conflict.

    I appreciate your attempts to function in this difficult environment and your willingness to discuss openly some of these personal and political dilemmas.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BPDT

    Thank you for engaging in this testy exchange of feedback. Yes, it did bother me, but it may have bothered the authors and activists trying to raise this difficult issue even more. I accept your explanation that no disrespect was intended. I hope you participate in future discussions on this topic; I do value your viewpoint very much and the passion with which you approach these struggles.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BPDT

    You are one of the most prolific, well-read, and insightful commenters at MIA. To chime in on this discussion with a one liner joke about the “grammar police” when one of the key topics is “definitions” came across as a form of ridicule or trying to make light of a serious subject. If you did not mean this to be disrespectful then you are at least guilty of some form of insensitivity.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank and BPDT

    I oppose the dismissive and sarcastic way you are addressing the vitally important distinction being made between iatrogenic dependence and addiction. For survivors currently dealing with trying to safely taper off of benzos these can be life and death questions based on how they are treated by the medical establishment.

    And due to both Psychiatry’s (and mainstream medicine’s) horrific treatment of those dependent on benzos these distinctions may make the difference between successfully liberating themselves from these drugs or remaining stuck in a disabling iatrogenic maze. We are only in the earliest stages of knowing the true damage done by this category of drug as Humanbeing has pointed out.

    I have nothing but the deepest respect for both the scholarship and activism of JDoe. Ally and others championing this cause. They represent one very important sector within the benzo/damaged/survivor community and must be taken serious, learned from, and supported.

    If people have read my previous comments in past discussions regarding this topic you know that I have some important differences with some aspects of how JDoe + others approach this issue. We have absolutely no differences related to the definitions (iatrogenic dependence and addiction) and the fact that a significant sector (possibly the vast majority of benzo victims) fall strictly into the category of iatrogenic dependence where not even a hint of addiction resides.

    While there is (and needs to be) a “black and white” scientific distinction made between the definitions and concepts of iatrogenic dependence and addiction, there are many “grey” areas when we deal with some people’s actual life experience. Where JDoe’s analogy breaks down is when you consider the fact that some people who had prior existing addiction problems have also had iatrogenic dependence on benzos added to their already difficult lives by the medical malpractice of improper prescribing. There are also some people who have suffered from iatrogenic dependence on benzos who have migrated into the misuse or abuse of other substances, perhaps trying to cope with or “self medicate” the horrible effects of these drugs. This is where and when everything becomes even more complicated for this sector of survivors. It also raises important questions about how we approach building a united struggle to address the whole benzo crisis head on.

    This important topic bears future exploration for which I am writing about as we speak. I will not respond any further to this particular aspect of the topic at this time but look forward to a respectful discussion in the future.

    My main reason for commenting is to criticize the sniping and ridicule and support JDoe’s and other’s activism on this important issue. Frank and BPTD, you are better than this. Please listen and learn, apologize, and then get back on track and raise your game.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BPDT and Kayla

    Here is a second response I made in the discussion of my previous blog mentioned above. I cannot stress enough the richness of the content of that discussion. Many people participated and made very valuable contributions to a most difficult issue.

    “Jonathan

    You said: “I just can’t support the idea that we should criminalize everyone who is aggressive/violent and psychotic. I take exception to the idea that.”

    You are twisting words and phrases and creating “straw man” arguments to justify your support of ‘force’ and forced drugging.

    Where did I EVER say that, or where did anyone else opposing ‘force’ on this thread promote such a position.

    We should ALWAYS avoid (wherever possible) involving the police, the courts, and the prison system when dealing with people in extreme psychological states. My trust in those institutions is on a par with psych wards which you SHOULD know from prior discussions is not very high.

    You said: “… I think it is highly troubling to turn over every aggressive and psychotic person over to the justice system. The humane thing to do is to give them space until the psychosis passes. If you call that enabling…so be it.”

    Jonathan, you are unfortunately now making things up about my position to prop up your increasingly indefensible position on ‘force.’

    Where did I EVER say “to turn over every aggressive and psychotic person to the justice system.”

    So let’s be clear on YOUR position as stated above:
    “The HUMANE (emphasis added) thing to do is to give them “SPACE” (emphasis added) while the psychosis passes.”

    Based on your past (admitted) practice in some emergency situations, the “HUMANE” thing to do is tying someone down to a gurney and giving them the “SPACE”; a forced neuroleptic injection.

    How BENIGN you tried to make it sound above. But many here at MIA are very aware of the so-called “SPACE” you are carving out for them, and it ain’t so benign or pretty. For many it is extremely life damaging.

    Jonathan, the “enabling” that is referred to above (by me) involves the frequent cycle of forced treatment that many people who are caught within the mental health system seem to repeat and are all too familiar with.

    Many of these people know that if they defiantly remain acting out or violent that this will often force people like you to forcibly drug them and incarcerate them in a psych ward. They don’t really want it to happen, but they also do not want to calm down and obey you.

    This is very much like a defiant son rebelling against an abusive father. He will sometimes push the situation to a point where he will force the father to play out his abusive role so the son can hold on to his anger and prove to himself that he is the ultimate victim (which he is).

    This way (the son) does not have to look at or take responsibility for some of his own behavior. And of course the father feels justified (for his own violent actions) because the son may have been out of control. The cycle of violence and dysfunction continues, each “enabling” the other.

    Sometimes parents are forced, as a last resort, (when a child is completely out of control) to take their child to a dept. of social services where ultimately a judge will often pose the question to the teenage child, “would you rather follow the rules of your parents or live in a foster home for a while.” Sometimes this coercive choice becomes enough to convince the child to behave better and/or perhaps the physical or emotional abuse by the parents will be revealed to authorities.

    Jonathan, you are caught up in an analogous situation in the work you do. You are playing the role of the abusive father/mental health worker who justifies his abuse based on the out of control behavior of the unfortunate patient in the emergency room. The patient in this situation (because of dire life circumstances) is also not willing and/or able to take responsibility for their behavior at that moment. “Enabling” is not the solution to this dilemma.

    Jonathan, my position is as follows; PLEASE PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION AND DO NOT DISTORT MY WORDS: in these extreme (hopefully rare) potentially out of control situations the person acting aggressive or violent needs to be given clear and consistent (over time) options by the caregivers.

    For example:

    ” Nigel, you need to calm down now or things are going to happen here that neither of us want to happen. In the past you may have been forcibly restrained and then given a forced injection of powerful drugs and ended up on a locked unit of a psych ward. This was wrong and abusive treatment. I have participated in that abuse myself and very much regret my prior action actions, and I am very sorry that you may have endured that type of “treatment” in the past.”
    “Now we do things differently. I promise you that someone will sit down and listen to your problems or grievances in your life and attempt to find answers and solutions. You will not be drugged against your will or locked up against your will. You may be given some prescribed drugs if you request them. If you are feeling out of control we have some short term sedative drugs to help you sleep or relax more.”

    “Nigel, I am very worried about your situation. Because we don’t yet have safe alternative programs for people in your situation if you don’t calm down now and continue to act aggressive or violent, we will be forced to call the police. This will be our only available option.”

    “Nigel, I would hate to have to do this because I do not trust the police to know how to handle you in a compassionate way, and you may end up being isolated and abused. We do not want this to happen, so PLEASE, Nigel, do not force us to make this call. Nigel do you clearly understand the situation and the options before you.”

    Now, Nigel has been given clear options. If he makes the wrong choice here, it is terribly unfortunate, but it is a FAR better option (at this primitive place in our history) than the forced drugging and forced “treatment” that you, Jonathan have to offer. An option that you BTW also have the ability and the right to refuse to carry out.

    And Jonathan, if Nigel ever comes back to your emergency room, because he was NOT “enabled” in the cycle of violence that you offer. I bet the odds are that he would choose to calm himself down the next time and possible accept your offer to talk about his problems, maybe self admit himself in a crisis stabilization unit (we have one in my city) and perhaps take some drugs to help him get a nights sleep. In this new scenario he would avoid being re-traumatized and his chances of getting better would be increased.

    Richard”

    Report comment

  • BPDT and Kayla

    To clarify my position on the use of ‘force’ I have copied a response I made (Oct. 17 2014) in a discussion of my blog “May the ‘Force’ Never Ever Be With You.”

    This was in response to Jonathan Keyes who at the time was supporting the use of ‘force’ in special circumstances

    “Jonathan

    You said: “I think this comes down to my fundamental question. If you oppose force, why do you support police and the prison system for working with the “mentally ill”?”

    I do NOT support the police or the jail system working with those labeled “mentally ill.” The prison system in this country is oppressive and the police have a role in society of maintaining order. If the status quo inordinately benefits the 1% at the top of the pyramid and is unjust to those in the middle and especially at the bottom, then therefore the maintenance of “order” by the police is mainly for the benefit of the 1% at the top.

    I support people creating alternatives to keep people in distress away from the police and the jails and the psych wards. I have no illusions that this can be widely accomplished without major systemic changes broadly in society, as I referred to in my last response.

    So what do we do until these bigger changes take place? Organize. Take a stand, and fight back! Refuse to go with the flow. Refuse to do the system’s dirty work. Let some one else do it, and then call them out on it and shame them (with science and survivor narratives) where ever they are and where ever they go.

    You said: “If someone who is labeled “mentally ill” is attacking a vulnerable person, would you intervene…and how? ”

    Here is the best I can offer in a very difficult dilemma for anyone working inside the system. They (the distressed person) should be told ahead of time what will happen if they are violent or threatening violence. They should be pulled away from harming some one else. They should be offered support, consolation and compassion. If they are so aroused that they cannot calm themselves (with this kind of support) then they should be offered short term use of sedative drugs (such as Benzos).

    If none of this support or offer of drugs works then they should be told that if they cannot control themselves the police will be called to intervene. They should never be forcibly drugged or contained in a psych ward against their will; the short and long term harm FAR exceeds other alternatives.

    I believe that if psychiatry was forced to turn over its control of labeled people to other forces in society (even jails), than societal outrage regarding their treatment of such individuals would force more benign approaches to emerge in these other institutions, even prisons and jails.

    We need to shine a spotlight on the inordinate and oppressive power that psychiatry wields in this society. We cannot do this by accepting (or reconciling) their right to drug and detain people against their will in ANY circumstances, violent or not. Do you really trust Biological Psychiatry to safely detain some one in this level of distress?

    Jonathan, do not under estimate the powerful effect you could have on other people around you by taking a strong stand against the use of forced drugging and forced hospitalization.

    Richard “

    Report comment

  • BPDT

    I appreciate you reading my blog on ‘force’ but you must have neglected to read the comprehensive discussion that followed. All of these questions were delved into in great detail. Everything you are speaking up about was addressed.

    I am NOT a pacifist nor was I advocating that people sit back and accept being attacked or do nothing if others are being attacked. Yes, these are difficult questions, but you are traveling on a slippery slope when leaving the door open for ‘force’ in “special” circumstances.

    Please read the entirety of discussion under that blog – no stone was left unturned.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Cat

    I appreciate your comments on these subjects very much. The way you weave your own personal experiences with very powerful sarcastic critiques of today’s mental health and addiction treatment approaches are often filled with a combination of strong emotions and insightful knowledge.

    People should read the actual news story included in this posting. It represents just one aspect of the benzodiazepine crisis, and is such a powerful indictment of Big Pharma, Psychiatry, and mainstream medicine when it comes to how they prescribe this category of drug and treat its resulting damage.

    Unfortunately this man who committed suicide will most likely be labeled as “an addict with a disease” even though his story most likely began as another example of iatrogenic dependence caused by medical malpractice. From there his experiences may have evolved into some aspects of addiction, but I have zero trust that “The System” knows how to make those determinations and/or find the appropriate help for such a person. It sounds like he was suffering from horrible benzo withdrawal made worse by additional psychiatric drug cocktails.

    This is a very sad story (watch the personal video that is imbedded in the news article) that is unfortunately repeating itself thousands of times throughout this country.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Alison

    This bill represents an important beginning step in exposing the dangers of benzodiazepines and in supporting safer withdrawal for the high number of people harmed by iatrogenic dependence.

    Hopefully this activism can lead to even greater efforts to expose the totality of the crimes of Big Pharma and Psychiatry relative to the benzodiazepine crisis, including the potentially explosive connection to opioid overdose epidemic.

    I am so glad you repeated the statistic that at least 30% of all fatalities from opiate overdoses involve benzos. In fact benzos may often be THE decisive component in these deadly drug cocktails. Credible statistics indicate that 60% of all people who use legal and illegal opiates also use benzos on a daily or regular basis. This sets up the material conditions for the “perfect storm” of addiction where death always lurks very close by.

    The reckless prescribing of this category of drug has enormous negative consequences throughout our society; so many different sectors of people are seriously harmed. The more of these sectors who speak out and become active the greater our chances for success in uniting our efforts and advancing our cause.

    Thank you for speaking out and fighting this cause.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I signed the petition. Art is always a reflection of our culture, but it can also react back on the culture at large in either a forward moving or backward way.

    This film reinforces all the worst stereotypes regarding so-called “mental illness” and the forms of compassionate support necessary to help people overcome extreme forms of emotional stress. This film is in clear contradiction to the supposed intentions of this television channel. Raising the censorship card is absurd in this context. Would it be wrong to challenge a TV station purporting to fight racism that was promoting “The Birth of the Nation” as a progressive film?

    I also agree with Oldhead’s comments directed towards both Sera and Alex. Yes, sometimes we all need to give ourselves a big kick in the pants to get off our asses and take on the “Beast,” but we must always remember how this System continuously (in a million ways) beats down and smothers any and all efforts to rise up against it. Nobody ever deserves their oppression; even some of us more “seasoned” activists are subject to various forms of “learned helplessness” when it comes to consistently “fighting the power.”

    Alex states: “So I don’t know. Humanity is humanity, in all its diversity. Hard to say what actually does and does not do damage, but I’m not a big fan of sabotage.”

    While the first part of this statement comes across as complete agnosticism on the political content of the film in question, the second half leaves no confusion as to his critique of Sera’s efforts to challenge its presence on the mental health channel. Alex, the use of the words “sabotage” and “destruction” should be reserved for the descriptions of the leaders and proponents of Biological Psychiatry and their oppressive medical model. That kind of sniping within our own ranks is divisive and demoralizing.

    Alex stated: “When we change ourselves, we change the world, and that is not just a platitude, it’s real. Internal change= external change.”

    You have made similar comments before in other threads for which I never bothered to make a response. The emphasis is always on people doing internal work on themselves over more external political activism. Once again, Oldhead hits the nail on the head. I would only add this point.

    Between the two, “internal change = external change” and “change the world and we change ourselves,” I would definitely say very strongly that the latter is PRINCIPLE in that powerful dialectic of change.

    While we all have much individual work to do on ourselves, it will most certainly be the great future political upheavals (leading to major systemic change) and OUR ROLE in them, that will do the most to transform our consciousness and ways we interact with the world and all its people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    Another great blog.

    Of course here you are only referencing a study focusing on economic inequality along with your added point about additional unpaid labor performed in the home.

    None of this addresses all the other aspects of gender inequality and forms of sexism in our society that represent additional stressors to the female sex, This easily accounts for the still higher adjusted figures you listed when only examining economic factors.

    Biological Psychiatry clearly serves a social and political role to obscure the class and gender disparities in society and shift the focus to “genetic theories of original sin” as an explanation for human frailties and shortcomings.

    Their disease/drug model also serves to anesthetize potential activists and rebels with mind numbing substances. All of this only reinforces the power and control of the status quo and the ruling classes who hold the reins and reap the benefits of this class and profit based system. What a racket!

    Richard.

    Report comment

  • Seth and Rosa

    What Frances is trying to save is the profession of Psychiatry. His entire being is wrapped up in his stature as a doctor and his past contributions to advancing the growth of modern Psychiatry. He deathly fears what might be in the future for his life’s work, his reputation, and his economic standard of living.

    Historically all those people who seek to stake out some sort of middle ground are usually afraid of what they deem to be “extremist” positions that threaten to bring down certain institutions that are in danger of crumbling.

    It is more than obvious why he would attack the anti-psychiatry critique of the disease/drug based paradigm of so-called “treatment.”

    He also knows that the growing exposure of his profession by its collusion with Big Pharma, its unbridled mass drugging and the related backlash, and the complete corruption of all the science justifying Biological Psychiatry’s reason to exist as a medical profession is serving to seriously undermine Psychiatry’s credibility in the world.

    He desperately wants to rain in what he views as Psychiatry’s “excesses” before all credibility is lost and the walls start to crumbling to the ground.

    He is trying to present himself as a “voice of reason” and an “appeaser” amongst a sea of confusion and more “extremist” positions.

    History always brings forth such figures and voices like Dr. Frances. It is a good sign that our opposition work has done enough to create the conditions for such an “appeaser” to desperately feel the need to speak out with this type of message.

    It is also vitally important that these “middle ground” positions be critically examined and exposed for what they are – reactionary and backward bullshit!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The “new onset of depression” may not necessarily be related to the depressive effects of the opioids themselves. Perhaps in this discussion we should look at some related issues to long term opioid use such as:

    1) Dependency and/or addiction issues that will inevitably occur after long term use of these drugs and its negative effects on overall social functioning, including work, social relationships, financial stability, and health problems.

    2) Long term use of opioids often leads to a GREATER sensitivity to pain thus CONTRIBUTING to chronic pain problems rather than mitigating those symptoms. This frequently leads to people engaging in LESS movement and exercise (due to less motivation and desire to be active) thus preventing them from engaging in the scientifically proven benefits of controlled exercise as a form of physical therapy.

    3) The overall effects of 1) and 2) on a person’s thoughts and behavior could seriously detract from their quality of life and their ability to experience pleasure and happiness thereby depressing mood.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This is a great summation of the scientific and social myths covering up Biological Psychiatry’s oppressive role in society. Definitely worthy of copying and disseminating broadly.

    One quibble I would make regarding Myth #4 talking about the “chemical imbalance” theory, Gary states : “Such simplistic theories have been perpetrated by Big Pharma upon a gullible public and a gullible psychiatric industry…”

    The entire fault here does not only lie with Big Pharma. The American Psychiatric Association and other key leaders in Psychiatry (promoting their own guild interests) have colluded at the highest levels to develop and promote this pseudoscience.

    It is the strategic alliance between these two institutions that has led us to the current crisis of the disease/drug based medical model dominating the “mental health” industry and modern medicine. It may represent the biggest and most damaging medical hoax over the past 100 years.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rossa

    Great comment.

    Relapses back into extreme states, or into similar levels of psychological distress, such as addiction, are NEVER something you WANT to happen, nor are they positive when they ARE happening.

    However, while they ARE happening we much switch our thought process towards trying to find the best ways to turn a BAD thing into a GOOD thing. That is, how can we extract every last lesson and piece of knowledge from this CURRENT experience so as to create conditions to minimize the risks of FUTURE relapses, or actually develop the learning curve to a point where PERMANENT recovery and/or abstinence is achievable.

    In a sense we are searching for perhaps the final piece to a puzzle for how to develop the mental and physical coping skills to survive in a very stressful and unjust world. Of course this is an on going process that continues until the day we die, because both the world and our relationship to it is in a constant state of change.

    As this constantly evolving goal is achieved (within each moment) we might someday look back, in RETROSPECTION, and say “such & such relapse was a GOOD thing because I/we were able to learn this important piece of knowledge and/or develop this critical kind of social support system so as to make our overall human experience together more productive and worthwhile.

    Rossa, I hope I have added some additional meaning to your insightful words and experience.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • lucilda

    If you are NOT a Biological Psychiatrist then you have seriously missed your true calling. Your words are literally dripping with that indomitable combination of the highest levels of arrogance and ignorance that permeates the psychiatric profession

    Oh, where to begin to dissect such utter nonsense!

    “Most doctors prescribe benzodiazapines as a last resort…”

    I guess the 94 million prescriptions for benzos in 2013 (most of them likely long term) was just of a lot of “last resort” prescribing, instead of being one of the worst examples of medical malpractice in all of American medicine.

    “…when patients repeatedly come to the office hysterical, crying about how they can’t sleep, can’t cope, “please doc can’t you give me something”

    How is this fundamentally different than patients “asking for” or “demanding” antibiotics. Doctors/psychiatrists resisting “Dr. Feelgood” personas is a necessary prerequisite for practicing ethical medicine, especially when they should be educated about the long term negative (emotionally crippling) effects of the unethical prescribing of benzodiazepines.

    “no one is forced to take benzodiazapines”

    Is this not the essence of the kind of “blame the victim” posturing that permeates the excuses of virtually all prescribing medical malpractice?

    “Normal alcohol use and normal doses of benzodiazapines are not a problem except in people with addiction.”

    Exactly who are these “people with addiction” that are somehow the ONLY ones who might develop a problem combining alcohol and benzos on a regular basis? What the hell is “normal alcohol use” and “normal doses of benzodiazepines” anyways? Does this not vary dramatically from human being to human being DEPENDING ON THEIR LIFE EXPERIENCES AND THEIR PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL CIRCUMSTANCES in which they consume these substances. Anyone can develop an addiction, even someone with your level of hubris, lucilda, if they are in the right combination of life circumstances.

    “Your judgement was so impaired that you apparently did not realize or ignored the fact that combining alcohol and benzodiazapines was a problem, at least for you.”

    Everyone here should seriously question the judgment of someone making the above nonsensical statement. How many doctors have taken the time to learn about the dangers of benzodiazepines, and truly understand the science of addiction as it relates to combining two different drugs from the sedative hypnotic family? The synergistic effect of these combinations are not a simple one plus one equals two; the effects are quite often much much higher. If someone (that means me or even you, lucilda) has NO PRIOR problem with substance use, yes, they are at risk of developing addiction issues if they combine these two types of drugs on a regular basis.

    “Having a correct diagnosis, may give guidance to what medications may be effective…”

    Are these words not the living embodiment of Biological Psychiatry’s approach to “treating” extreme states or psychological distress. Robert should be pleased to know that his living nightmare could be finally over if he just found the right psychiatrist who could label his “diagnosis/disease” correctly (once and for all) and tweak the right combination of psychiatric “medications” to target his “chemical imbalance.”

    “Since you have had serious psychiatric symptoms for the last twenty years it is unlikely that you will stop having serious psychiatric symptoms.”

    The “wisdom” and hackneyed phrases of modern psychiatry just keeps oozing out of this benevolent, or should I say, malevolent comment. Just more disease mongering with the added caveat of perpetual permanency.

    “Your narrative is so full of holes, misinformation, and general nonsense that I do not see how anyone could take you seriously.”

    Is this not the THE classic case of projection and looking in the mirror? Though unfortunately, lucilda, in this case I DO take YOU seriously. Having worked in community mental health for over 22 years, and in that time worked with perhaps two dozen different psychiatrists, I have encountered your hubris, outlook, and approach many times.

    Lucilda, when you say “you seem to be your own worst enemy” I want to return to the first part of my comment above. If you are not currently practicing psychiatry PLEASE PLEASE sign up right away. For the sooner you become part of the psychiatric profession I will be comforted in knowing that Psychiatry’s ultimate demise will be finally much closer at hand.

    As insane as our current world truly is, lucilda, your version of reality could only have the effect of perhaps (once and for all) “turning reality back on it head” or smacking some sense into the larger public consciousness with the shear absurdity of your ideas. You certainly “woke me up” today, for sure!

    BTW, Robert, this was a great blog that is filled with great insight and very important questions. Your story is a living example of the true nature of the current benzo crisis and the high crimes of modern psychiatry.

    Richard
    PS. Word of note, I chose to leave alone lucilda’s misspelling of benzodiazepines in the context of her quotes.

    Report comment

  • I believe the total figure for benzo prescriptions in 2013 was 94 million. JAMA, 2013, Jones et al. printed a study that indicated that at least 30% of all opiate overdose fatalities involve benzodiazepine drugs. I suspect that this figure is actually higher if toxic drug screens were performed on the many poor/working class deaths of unknown causes.

    At least 60% (or more) of opiate addicted/dependent people use benzos on a regular basis due to the fact that this drug cocktail greatly magnifies the overall drug “high.” This sets a deadly stage for a “perfect storm” of addiction where death always lurks very close by.

    I believe that the statistic listed above for heroin overdose deaths in 2014 in the U.S. is grossly underestimated. There was a documented 1200 plus deaths in 2014 in Massachusetts alone.

    My research tells me that at least 45 people die everyday from opiate/heroin overdoses. Given the close to one third involvement of benzos in those deaths, this indicates that benzos may kill a minimum of 15 people per day.

    Most opiate addicts know how to use their opiates but often forget the amount of benzos they also consumed in the same day. Benzodiazepines are (in my view) frequently the DECISIVE synergistic component in the deadly drug cocktail of opiates and benzos.

    The benzo crisis and its connection to the opiate overdose epidemic is one of Psychiatry’s greatest crimes, and I would argue that today it represents Psychiatry’s weakest link. We must take advantage of this opportunity for exposure and organized resistance that Psychiatry has gifted us.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • DRT

    Thank you so much for your comments; they are very validating for all my efforts.

    We, indeed, have much work to do about the benzo crisis and its connection to the opiate overdose epidemic. I f we do our work right this is a potentially explosive issue that could severely weaken Biological Psychiatry.

    Please read and comment on my past blog which expounds on the importance of this issue.
    http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/10/benzodiazepines-psychiatrys-weakest-link/

    Report comment

  • Boans

    You may be correct in your assessment that there were other motives when the head of the state’s Drug Control Program finally agreed to meet with me “out of respect.” Prior to that he did say he had consulted legal advice. Perhaps they wanted to find out how much incriminating evidence I had of wrong doing to determine if they could be held liable for any future inaction on their part related to the complaint I filed.

    Your case sounds much more underhanded and strategic on the part of those in authority. I am sorry you had to endure such treatment from an institution that “claims” to be helping people in such a vulnerable time in their life. We have much work to do!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    As a big fan of your activist writing, thanks for the support.

    We, indeed, have a long road ahead of us. Even when we think we have some significant evidence to more thoroughly expose the harm done by this system, they ignore it and continue to grind the wheels of their machine. I am afraid that even those new studies summed up by Robert Whitaker will be ignored until we have a more developed movement of active resistance.

    There is much at stake (economically and politically) for the pharmaceutical industry, Psychiatry, and those in power who want to maintain control over the more volatile sections of the masses who are potential creative agents of change. Labeling and drugging are very effective means of control; they will NOT let go of these weapons easily or without a fight.

    Onward, Richard

    Report comment

  • Boans

    Good to read you again and I hope you are back for good.

    Rest assured that I am not deterred in the least from continuing this battle. My experience only deepens my understanding of how dysfunctional and corrupt this ‘System’ is and why we need revolutionary change.

    And yes, shaming and holding people accountable for their actions, or lack of action, is all part of exposing oppression and building a movement against it.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • Someone Else

    Thanks for the support and the poetic and musical contributions that do offer inspiration to carry forward with the struggle.

    You consistently tell a powerful story at MIA and provide detailed experience about the dangers of psychiatric drugs and those institutions of power that continue to lord over the masses of people.

    Your passion for the truth and for bringing the harm doers to justice helps inspire me to stay in the “Good Fight.” Onward!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • John

    Thanks for the support.

    I agree that more direct action that coordinates with greater education and exposure will be what is decisive in the future. I am not a big proponent of the legal route, but I felt I couldn’t ignore the opportunity my last few years in community mental health afforded me to raise a little hell.

    I do know that I made some people in authority at my clinic very nervous, and I wish I had a recording of my exit interview with clinic leadership because I held nothing back in my criticism of the harm being done by the medical model. I had prepared for that conversation for several years and it felt good to be completely free to state the truth and to morally hold people’s feet to the fire. I do hope they have more trouble sleeping at night as a result.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ragnarock

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. You tell a powerful story and have many important insights regarding what is wrong with Biological psychiatry and the medical model.

    I did look through online your “The Map of the Psyche” and (upon a cursory review) found it to be highly creative and comprehensive in its efforts to cover all aspects of the mind and human thought. I, personally, don’t do well with charts as a learning method, but others might find them to be both interesting and quite helpful.

    All The best, Richard

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    Your point is well taken. I do believe that was a big part of their hands off approach.

    There is a doctor in Fall River MA. who was identified in a Boston Globe article as being the 5th highest prescriber of Xanax in the entire country. He is notorious in the area as a Dr. Feelgood prescriber and many opiate addicted people flock to his door. In the early 2000’s he was brought before the state Medical Board on multiple charges of unsafe prescribing. I read through his case online (Dr. Claude Curran) and it was highly incriminating. But after many years went by they finally let him off the hook due mainly to doctor/patient confidentiality or some other nonsense.

    Reading through the facts of this case one is astounded that this doctor is still allowed to practice medicine. This is why I would NEVER waste my time taking any complaint to the Medical Board. All doctors (not just psychiatrists) have WAY TOO MUCH power and authority in our society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BPDT

    Thanks for your support and your continuing efforts at MIA to get to the heart of many matters of importance.

    You are right that I do take some satisfaction about taking on the ‘Beast.’ In the heart of this struggle I felt that my beliefs and radical actions were totally in sync, and that is a feeling that one rarely experiences in most jobs, especially working in the mental health system.

    Being of retirement age and collecting some Social Security (while now also working in a small private practice) I did have a bit more freedom than most people who can’t afford to take too many risks for fear of losing a single paycheck.

    You are also right to focus some of your analysis on the profit based capitalist system, which is at the heart of what stands in the way of human progress on this planet. Psychiatry has become more and more necessary and useful to the preservation of this system, which makes our fight all the more important. In Part 2 of my past blog titled “What is Biological Psychiatry: Anatomy of Power and Control” I made the following statement:

    “Today’s Biological Psychiatry has become such an essential part of the economic and political fabric holding together our present day society, including its ability and need to maintain control over the more volatile sections of the population, that its future existence may be totally interdependent on the rise and fall of the entire system itself.”

    I believe the truth of this statement manifests itself each and every day that Psychiatry maintains its current role and power in our society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    Thanks for those words. I greatly admire the very narrow and treacherous path upon which you walk as someone still in the ‘System.’ You have helped build a base of support that provides some insulation from all the heat; at least for now. I clearly was not surrounded by a similar base , especially from active survivors who emerged from some of your area’s alternative supports. That collective voice will make it more difficult to isolate you and silence those who continue to speak out.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Frank

    Thanks for your support.

    You are right about mortality rates being an important issue to explore and publicize. There are many clients in community mental health dying in their 50’s; twenty years (or more)sooner that other people in out society. If it’s not a drug overdose or suicide than it’s metabolic diseases or heart conditions all caused or made worse by the psychiatric drugs.

    Today, Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry are inseparable. Neither on can exist without the other; their future is forever tied together. Hopefully they will both fall together, and the sooner the better.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead,

    Thanks for the support and your attempts to find deeper meaning and lessons from all this experience.

    Yes we need to search for those opportunities where a “single spark can start a prairie fire.” Despite some of the disappointments encountered in this struggle it has not demoralized me or caused me to back away from seeking ways to advance our movement.

    I did receive some interesting support and feedback from some of my colleagues at the clinic before I left. Many thanked me for speaking out and daring to challenge the status quo.

    Many of the other therapists are definitely aware that Psychiatry has too much power and that the medical model has not only NOT delivered on its promises, but also that poly-pharmacy has overwhelmed and replaced therapy as the standard of care. While they don’t yet share a radical perspective at this time, many are beginning to lift their heads to ask questions and think more critically.. Several other clinicians are also leaving the clinic due to low morale and other related issues.

    One psychiatrist even called me into her office and apologized to me for not speaking out more and supporting my efforts regarding the excessive benzo prescribing patterns at the clinic; she has since resigned and move on to another job. Even she (and another prescriber who was open minded and read materials passed on to her) had some ethical problems with Big Pharma’s claims and how much drugging was going on.

    This shortage of psychiatrists puts enormous strain on the system and increases liability issues due to the fact that some of the remaining prescribers are now responsible for three to five hundred patients apiece. This gives new meaning to quality of care and the five minute [med]/DRUG reviews that may occur many months apart.

    Oldhead, I agree that we must be careful about the use of the word “broken” to describe this ‘System.’ I do not want to leave the impression that this system EVER really worked for the vast majority of people. It never has nor was it designed to function that way.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • One factor in this type of discussion that is rarely talked about is the period of time and experiences of a fetus PRIOR to birth. What is the impact on the development of a fetal brain from depression, wide mood swings with periods of elation, and extreme stress and anxiety in the pregnancy experience of the birth mother?

    All this must be factored into any scientific examination of the nature/nurture debate and it would be next to impossible to measure this in any meaningful way.

    Report comment

  • Johanna

    Excellent critical analysis.

    Another related issue is the medical establishment and the pharmaceutical industry’s promotion of the view that “chronic pain” is actually a “disease.” Judy Forman who is a medical writer for the Boston Globe just posted such an analysis last week. It is this phony science that justifies long term prescription of opioid drugs for those patients who are not “abusing” or selling their drugs. More and more evidence is coming out that long term use of opioid drugs can make pain symptoms worse in the long run.

    Report comment

  • Just exactly WHO has “MUDDIED THE WATERS” in this discussion AND what does the renown Doctor HEATHER ASHTON have to say on the issues of iatrogenic dependence and addiction?

    First off, I have been told (accused might be too strong a word) in this discussion that I have “muddied the waters” by stating that we should not try to erect an “impenetrable wall” between the two concepts of *iatrogenic benzo dependence* and *addiction*, AND my advocacy for “blowing the top off” the benzodiazepine crisis by recognizing the value in uniting all sectors of society damaged by these drugs, including those affected in the opiate overdose epidemic. In other words, not allow the System to get away with another “divide and conquer” consequence to all the cultural barriers imposed on us in this crazy world.

    My short answer to the question of “who muddied the waters?” is NOBODY! Nobody, that is, here in this blog or comment/discussion section.

    In my view the waters were “muddied” long ago by an economic and political system that spews out enough trauma and stress on a daily basis to create fertile ground for a culture of addiction and dependence, and a profit based market place to promote and distribute mind altering substances (under the guise of medicine and medications) to treat fictitious brain diseases.

    Now, here we are trying to bring some sanity and science to a complicated mess of experience and ideas. Iatrogenic dependence and addiction have clearly different meanings and experiential outcomes that need to be defined. BUT this does not mean there are not some “grey areas” that need to also be explored and understood. So what does HEATHER ASHTON have to say on one important aspect of these complicated issues?

    On the Ashton website in her answer to the question #38 (Questions and answers). “Should I use a 12 Step program like Narcotics Anonymous to help me recover from my Benzodiazepine addiction?” Ashton responds as follows: (first off she does give a good explanation of iatrogenic dependence and certain downsides of the 12 Step approach) then she states:

    “…It is important to note that a sizeable percentage of benzodiazepine dependents do exhibit patterns of abuse. The clearest sign is taking doses far in excess of what your doctor has prescribed and/or having a history of abusing other drugs in the past or simultaneously with your benzodiazepines.”

    So I agree with the above statement and believe there are several subsets of people who are dependent on benzodiazepines in society, and it is important to understand both their differences along with some areas of commonality:

    1) A sizeable subset of people (possibly the vast majority) with iatrogenic dependence, with no addictive history and no evidence of addictive use. (JDoe and others are an advocate for this group)
    2) People with an addiction history (or active use) who at times, or on a regular basis, use benzos (prescribed or otherwise) to add to or supplement their addictive relationship with other drugs and/or alcohol. Here a form of iatrogenic dependence may develop and be interwoven with elements of addiction.
    3) People who have iatrogenic dependence on opiates that was caused by organized medicine, and then migrate to street drugs as dependence and tolerance issues escalate and their doctors cut them off or abandon them. Many of these people also seek out benzos because of increased anxiety in their lives and a need/desire to offset opiate withdrawal. When full blown addiction behavior consumes their lives, benzos may become a regular additive to their opiate cocktail. Both those people in the 2 and 3 category are at greatest risk of dying from and opiate/benzo drug cocktail.
    4)People who first develop an iatrogenic benzo dependence from reckless prescribing and then due to the horrible side or *main* effects the psychological conditions are now created for it to become a gateway drug for addiction to other substances like alcohol or opiates when seeking relief from withdrawal/tolerance. This is clearly one of the larger “grey areas” in understanding some of the connections between iatrogenic dependence and addiction.
    5) People who are primarily addicted to benzos (they may have arrived at this status through iatrogenic dependence) and use these drugs in addictive ways and also supplement their addiction by using other addictive drugs.

    People should be able to see that this issue is NOT clearly “black or white,” there is a lot of “grey” here. There is not, and cannot be, an impenetrable wall erected between these different but related concepts and specific drug related experiences. I am sure that the tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousand) of people who use internet benzo support groups fall into some of these different (and overlapping) categories Use of any mind altering substance can (over time) create all types of mind games or confusing thoughts about one’s relationship with the drug. This is a complicated topic that requires far more time and space that we have here at this time

    To deny or downplay the fact that these issues (related to benzodiazepine dependence) are very complicated and overlap in certain circumstances with addiction issues, will only undermine the credibility of those fighting this important cause and prevent more people from joining in the fight.

    It is here where those people who view their problems mainly through a prism of addiction may especially need our help in sorting out all this complicated shit. Compassion, understanding, science, AND solidarity are all important in helping people deal with these issues.

    I will repeat again that I fully support (and understand the reasons behind) the effort to draw a clear distinction between iatrogenic dependence and addiction. In fact, by clearly making this distinction, it actually adds weight to the overall political indictment of Psychiatry and Big Pharma and further highlights their criminal actions in damaging millions of unsuspecting victims in the world who are guilty of nothing more than putting their trust in the care of a psychiatrist or doctor.

    My approach here has been to give constructive feedback regarding a more minor and secondary countercurrent of narrowness in a few parts of the blog as it relates to concepts and attitudes towards addiction and the approach to “uniting ALL who can be united” to achieve the goals of the struggle. In addition( for the broader MIA community) I have tried to broaden a discussion about how ALL of us might approach the opportunities afforded by the benzodiazepine crisis to advance the struggle against all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Where is Britain on the issue of the benzodiazepine crisis? Some would say that they are way ahead of the United States on this issue. Is this really true?

    After all, Britain has Dr. Heather Ashton, a heroic pioneer in the fight for all victims of benzodiazepines. She developed the science behind understanding the damage done by the prolonged use of benzos and she also developed the path breaking protocols for more successful tapering/withdrawal from these drugs; protocols that may have eventually saved thousands of lives in Britain and throughout the world She ran a recovery clinic for 12 years between 1982 and 1994, helping hundreds of victim/survivors which also allowed her to further develop scientific breakthroughs including the concepts of of iatrogenic dependence and neurotoxicity related to these drugs. I would also add that Britain has had survivors like Barry Haslam who have championed the cause and done great education and support work around this issue.

    Britain also has had various Chief Medical Officers (CMOs are the equivalent to the Surgeon General in this country) put out major warning distributed publically to all doctors warning about the dangers of benzodiazepines and recommending the standard protocol of only 2-4 weeks for prescribing these drugs.

    Yet, despite all this there are STILL millions of benzo prescriptions recklessly being prescribed in Britain, and on going damage being done related to iatrogenic dependence/neurotoxicity, worsening of addiction problems, and deaths related to opiate/benzo drug cocktails..

    How can this still be the case given the work of Heather Ashton, Barry Haslam, and CMO warnings periodically given in Britain? I would argue that Britain is not QUALITATIVELY any better off than the U.S. on this issue despite these noted positive factors.

    Would greater activism on the issue of the difference between iatrogenic dependence and addiction have helped the situation in Britain? Definitely yes, but I don’t believe it could ever have made a qualitative difference given the powerful forces we are up against.

    Apparently in Britain and in most countries in the world the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical/Industrial/Complex has just as much power and influence as it does in the U.S. Despite pioneering scientists, activists, and enlightened CMO’s in Britain, business as usual, (with DSM labels and psychiatric drugging, including benzodiazepines) continues to march on unabated. We must know our enemy (both who and what we are up against) to be able to win battles and ultimately defeat them.

    The pharmaceutical industry’s vast promotion and distribution of psychiatric drugs would not exist WITHOUT the pseudoscientific façade provided by modern Psychiatry. And Psychiatry would NOT have the enormous power it wields (labeling, incarcerating, Electro-shocking, and drugging) in today’s world without the money and influence of the pharmaceutical industry.

    We all have our work cut out for us in these future battles.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brighid

    Thanks for the thoughtful response.

    I am not trying to dominate “the talking stick” and I don’t believe I have prevented others from joining in this important discussion at this point.

    Unlike Part 1 of this blog, nobody I’m aware of has continued to use the word “addiction” where “iatrogenic dependence” should be used. And nobody is advocating anything other than supporting the essence of JDoe’s blogs; I have been one of the biggest supporters.

    When new people join in and discuss other related issues, including broader strategic issues around this cause and refer specifically to my comments and words (sometimes misunderstanding my meaning) I believe it is appropriate and necessary for me to respond.

    Very soon this blog will leave the front page of MIA and this particular discussion will wither away. There are many different levels to understanding the negative impact of benzodiazepines in the world and they all need to be addressed, including the interpenetration of various aspects of this struggle.

    I will soon introduce some other related topics because they are important to understanding the benzo crisis. And you and the others fighting this cause will definitely hear them from others if I didn’t raise them first here at MIA. I hope this helps you think more comprehensively on the subject; I know I have learned an enormous amount from reading these blogs and participating in the following discussion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    I think you may have missed my essential point on the issue of “commonality.”

    Based on *my* reading of JDoe’s two blogs, the more overt and implied goals for the struggle they are courageously waging seem to be the following:

    1) Educate people about the history of how “addiction” and “dependence” have been used by the medical establishment and codified in the DSM, and detail how this has negatively impacted victim/survivors of iatrogenic benzodiazepine dependence.
    2) Advocate for a clear distinction to be made between addiction and medically induced iatrogenic benzo dependence so that people suffering from this form of neurotoxicity will not be labeled as addicts and endure the implied judgments in society related to drug seeking behaviors or impulsive self harm, and most importantly not be “treated” with any of the standard addiction protocols for tapering/withdrawal/recovery which are extremely harmful in the cases of benzo dependence (and I would add other psych drugs as well).
    3) Build awareness and support for reclassifying iatrogenic benzo dependence as Ashton Syndrome, acknowledging the tremendous work done and protocols for recovery developed by the renown (at least in our circles) British doctor, Heather Ashton.
    4) Raise awareness regarding the reckless nature of benzodiazepine prescribing in society beyond the 2-4 week (more scientific) standard and create conditions for safer prescribing protocols so as to end the damage and deaths caused by these dangerous medical practices.
    5) Continue to build a community of support to help the millions of people damaged by benzodiazepine drugs to safely reduce their dependence and improve their daily functioning in the world.

    I hope I did justice to the purpose and meaning of these 2 blogs (JDoe, please correct my interpretation if I misrepresented any of the implied goals). And to accomplish these goals there seem to be a strong desire in the implied and stated goals (especially in the comments) to completely distance themselves from the addiction community (including the devastating effects these drugs have had related to opiate overdose epidemic) due to professional and public confusion between these two issues.

    My point on the issue of “commonality” relates more to the issue of WHAT WILL IT TAKE to even come close to achieving any of these type of goals given the nature of the system we are going up against?

    The power and money behind Psychiatry, the DSM, Big Pharma etc. is NOT going to allow their heavily promoted and profitable narrative about the necessity for benzo prescriptions for the “treatment” of anxiety “disorders” and insomnia, and whatever other brain disease processes, to change EASILY.

    They are heavily invested, as usual, in blaming the victims and describing all these kind of complaints as part of people’s “mental illness.” They will fight these changes (as they already are) with many forms of media, celebrities, and various strategies to promote confusion and division in our ranks and demean our own attempts to create a *new* more scientific and liberating narrative.

    In fact, this is not fundamentally different than Biological Psychiatry’s other narratives related to “chemical imbalances,” depression and SSRI’s, psychosis and antipsychotics, and kids being kids with stimulants. These narratives are all now deeply entrenched in the lexicon of speech and within people’s more backward understanding of the nature of extreme forms of psychological distress.

    We know from history that “divide and conquer” is one of the hallmarks of how those in power try to preserve the status quo. Yes, there are clear differences between addiction and iatrogenic dependence and yes , those difference need to be sharply stated with education carried out broadly. But it would be a mistake to believe that in this case the “powers that be” are going to very soon announce “oh, we get it, we’re sorry for our mistakes, and we will implement your goals for changes in all these false narratives that have harmed so many people.”

    Let me be clear, I am NOT suggesting that anyone here believes that this will be an easy struggle, NOR am I trying to promote pessimism about taking up this battle. It is a noble battle and definitely capable of being won some time in the future.

    People can try all sorts of things, including distancing themselves from the addiction community and any concepts related to addiction, but this approach may isolate this part of the movement from important potential allies and end up keeping the numbers of activists rather small, thus making it even more difficult to change the publically accepted narrative about addiction and iatrogenic benzodiazepine dependence.

    Why not *consider* trying to “blow the top off” the entire benzodiazepine crisis by exposing ALL the ways benzodiazepines are wreaking havoc throughout our society. That is, detailing all sectors of society that are suffering great physical and mental damage and increasing numbers of deaths. Looking at shear numbers harmed and the broad scale of damage done, these drugs (benzos) may represent the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex’s greatest crime to date.

    Don’t the “powers that be” want us all to be divided into separate groups unable to gather any unified strength of will and purpose. A situation where each group is declaring how they are different from the other, and desperately trying to avoid any of societally imposed stigma or commonly accepted prejudices associated with one identified group of people

    Question: If an organized group of mothers and family members of deceased victims of opiate/benzo overdoses planned a public event trying to educate and expose the dangers of these drugs and target those responsible in society for recklessly prescribing them, what should our approach be to this struggle?

    What if they invited some one like JDoe, or some other activists in the benzo support community to speak at the event in order to share other experiences of oppression from these drugs and the medical establishment? Should these benzo activists attend and support such an event AND speak out, OR should they avoid the event for fear that the two very different but related issues will be conflated , and in their minds, possiblyweaken their separate struggle?

    And in a reverse scenario, if benzo support activists were organizing an event to promote their cause as I summarized above (I hope accurately), at some point in their struggle (when they have some organization and numbers) would it make sense for them to invite people from the addiction community that may have suffered great harm from the very same drugs and sources of oppression that have caused them so much damage and pain?

    I know what answers I would give to these strategic questions. Once again, I am guided by the mantra of “unite all who can be united.” Don’t let them separate us. Carefully explain and articulate the science behind addiction and dependence and any other key point of reference, but ultimately join in a common struggle against the same forces in society that harm us and want us to remain separate and powerless.

    The benzodiazepine crisis in this country is literally seething beneath the surface while negatively affecting millions of people. The “powers that be” cannot turn back or reverse the tide of their widespread promotion, enforced dependency and the resulting tragic misuse of these drugs on such a broad scale. With the development of the right kind of conditions and organized efforts this situation has the potential to blow wide open.

    If the benzo crisis were to “blow wide open” it would create favorable conditions for each and every sector of society harmed by these drugs to advance their particular agendas, including changing medical protocols and maximizing the kinds of support available to all the victims of this category of drug.

    I know every group and struggle has to find its own identity, and has to evolve at its own pace in the early stages of its development. I understand and respect that. I have deep respect for what these people/you are dealing with and what efforts they/you are making to achieve some type of liberation.

    I hope you can also appreciate that there are others here at MIA who see all this in a larger context and are seeking any (and every) way possible to advance the common cause against all forms of psychiatric abuse. Hopefully mutual respect and positive exchanges of ideas and strategies can advance all of our efforts in these struggles.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To all

    Brighid said: “Please, those who want to impose some broader ideology around the issues JDoe describes–allow these articles to find their footing first. Allow those of us in the community JD represents to find support and solidarity and solace together as we try to bring these facts to the world. Unlike the problem of addiction, ours is an invisible crisis, and we have found no support anywhere except among ourselves. Let us find it here without diverting the discussion in a way that, I would argue, does not benefit anyone.”

    I have deeply reflected on the above statement and Do grasp the importance of a certain community of the oppressed coming together with common cause and newly defined language. I agree that this is a process and that you may be in the early stages of making this happen, and also need (and desire) to remain focused and NOT sidetracked with extraneous issues.

    However, there is a very fine and vulnerable line here regarding the nature of the MIA website where this blog on benzos is now published. There are many “communities of the oppressed” participating here who have suffered various forms of psychiatric/medical abuse and want desperately to make ALL of it stop. And there are also some at MIA who would like to see a broader human rights movement around these issues come together to facilitate a desperately needed radical change. It is within THIS CONTEXT that that Part 1 and 2 of this very important blog arises.

    In this context – who has a right to speak, how much should they say, and how should they say it??? Not easy answers.

    I, personally, have never had a psychiatric diagnosis, any addiction problems, and nor have I ever been dependent or *physically* damaged by benzos. So some might ask why I even bother to participate at MIA?

    Actually (4 yrs ago) I carefully read MIA and the narratives of survivors for several months (learning from each and every one) before I even dared to make comments or write blogs here.

    So what are my so-called “credentials” for speaking out. Besides being just another fellow human being, I have the following human experience:

    1) I have been fighting (since the late 1960’s) multiple forms of human oppression; I am now almost 69 yrs old.
    2) I worked for over 22 yrs in community mental health and witnessed (and resisted in many ways) the complete takeover by Biological Psychiatry and their medical/diseased/psych drug based model that today dominates all aspects of medicine.
    3) I have witnessed people’s lives being shattered by the dependency and overall harm caused by psychiatric drugs (they are NOT medications) and some of my clients ( that I worked with for years) died from suicide or some type of overdose. I knew back in 1991 that these drugs were bad but had to helplessly watch minds and overall lives being destroyed.
    4) I have a dear close friend (of 45 years) who has suffered severe iatrogenic damage on a cocktail of psychiatric drugs for almost 25 years. Her damage began with benzos, and she is now two years into withdrawal with probably several years to go and struggles mightily everyday with neurotoxic effects. I have done my best to support and educate her and her husband to find the knowledge and support they need.
    5) In 1998 I discovered Heather Ashton and wrote a strict benzo policy for the agency where I worked which was rejected by clinic leadership.
    6) For over 22 yrs I handed doctors, other therapists, and clients many educational articles and scientific evidence regarding the harm caused by benzos and other psych drugs, often at great risk to my job.
    7) Two yrs ago, at great risk, I started a concerted campaign to challenge prescribing patterns at my clinic writing a 5 page challenge to clinic leadership with benzodiazepines being the number one problem addressed.
    8) I followed this up with two open letters (on benzo prescription abuse) sent to the medical department and clinic leadership, and wrote two OP-Ed pieces published in a local newspaper.
    9) When I received no significant response to these efforts, I filed a formal complaint (in May 2015) to the Mass Dept. of Mental Health and the Dept. of Public Health detailing specific examples of prescription abuse and possible deaths related to these abuses. There was almost zero response. Yes, the system is broken!!!
    10) In Sept. of this year I finally resigned from my agency in protest by giving all related evidence and documents to the board of directors , again with no response.
    For two years I lived with the daily reality of looking over my shoulder regarding the possibility of being fired at any moment.
    11) For the past 4 yrs I have been a dedicated activist at MIA and beyond fighting all aspects of psychiatric abuse.

    It is for you to decide how all of these experiences have affected me, especially watching the daily, weekly, yearly destructive toll of psychiatric drugs (especially benzos) on my friends, clients, and the overall cumulative effect of reading those emotionally shattering narratives published at MIA.

    I would NEVER compare my experiences ( including traumatic like effects of bearing witness) with those who have suffered iatrogenic neurotoxicity from benzos or other psych drugs. But it is because of all these experiences that I speak out and believe that I, also, have a stake in how this struggle ultimately plays out.

    With that being said, I will say that I have learned tremendously from each and every comment by survivors and others who have participated in this discussion. I thank you for that, even those who have disagreed with me at times.

    I hope you are all open to the possibility that my experience and views on these issues could also impart some remote piece of knowledge or insight your way as well.

    I can assure you that I am down for the Long March in the battle against psychiatric abuse and the oppression caused by the benzodiazepine crisis. I hope to stand next to you at the barricades – your struggle is indeed very important and must be supported.

    And finally, to all, on the issue of using correct language, many who have been long time commenters at MIA have made great efforts to NOT call any psychiatric drugs “medications.” Just as with the word “addiction” as it applies to “iatrogenic dependence” – “medications” is not scientifically correct and politically its continued use serves to reinforce the oppressive narrative promoted by Biological Psychiatry and Big Pharma. Please reconsider your use of this term.

    All the best, onward to victory.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • FG

    Thank you for the spirit of your response to my efforts to contribute to this discussion, even though we still have some disagreements about who we can and should seek out as allies in this struggle.

    As to your comments about 12 Step dogma standing as an obstacle to understanding addiction versus dependence, I completely agree with your analysis.

    People who are stuck in very one sided 12 Step dogma refuse to accept any experience or evidence that does not support their whole “disease” concept of addiction. They will repeat the phrase “a drug is a drug is a drug” ad nausea, and if a person was able to successfully taper off of a drug like benzodiazepines WITHOUT using 12 Step groups they would somehow claim they couldn’t have actually had a serious dependency issue in the first place. For these zealots, “addiction (as they would call it) and/or dependency is the disease and AA/NA is the medicine.You don’t take your medicine and you will relapse; end of story.”

    I don’t believe your/our efforts will ever get much support from hardcore 12 Step members.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JDoe

    It is clear that the tone of this discussion has shifted to something that I , in no way, wanted to happen. I have been nothing but supportive of your blog and the work you are trying to do. I have stated that several times, and also made some self criticism about how I have misused language in the past.

    If you could point out for me one sentence or phrase where I somehow became adversarial or overcritical in my past comments (or acted like a “hammer”) it would be helpful to me for future discussion.

    On the stigma issue, I only asked you to reconsider some of the content of one small paragraph which I even indicated that I knew that the possible negative connotations were NOT your intention. A simple retraction or acknowledgement of some problems with certain word choices would have ended that part of the discussion.

    As to the issue of pointing out the role of Psychiatry, as an anti-psychiatrist activist, I thought it was important to highlight the key role of the APA in the overall benzodiazepine crisis. While it is true that 70% of all psych drugs are NOW prescribed by primary care physicians this situation would never have developed to this point without Psychiatry’s development of the DSM and their overall collusion with Big Pharma.

    Yes, while the focus of some of my past work in the mental health system has been trying to help people with addiction, my main identity is focused on work as a political activist who wants to end all forms of human oppression, and in this case psychiatric and medical oppression.

    My intent in raising some of the broader implications of doing work around the benzodiazepine crisis (including building alliances with other aspects of the struggle) was NOT meant to misdirect this discussion away from the essential issues you are raising. I try to do this type of “broadening the scope of analysis ” in all my comments at MIA. My intention is to add to the discussion NOT derail or misdirect it. If you think that this is now happening perhaps I will step back a bit and listen and let others join the conversation.

    I do VERY MUCH want the main points of the blog regarding the essential difference between addiction and iatrogenic dependence get across to the readership so I will pay close future attention to the drift of the comment discussion.

    Based on some of the replies here, I don’t believe my attempts to articulate broader strategic issues related to this battle have been understood, I hope people will read the entirety of my efforts here before drawing conclusions about my position on this issue.

    I hope you can believe that my intention in participating in this blog discussion was for no other reason that to advance the cause for which you are so passionately and eloquently articulating here. I wish you nothing but success and true liberation from those/that which has caused you great harm.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Brighid

    In the quote of mine that caused you to wince, notice that I put the word “prescribed” in quotes. I was NOT equating doctor’s *prescribing* drugs with people *deciding* to use drugs in peer groups.

    My main point in that comment was that the use of these substances often seems like a normal consequence of life for the people using them at the time. They have no intention or desire to do any harm to themselves or become addicted. And based on what they may observe in their immediate peer group (at that moment) they have little reason to believe they are taking a great risk to their well being. In that sense they are kind of “socially prescribed” by the commonly accepted behavior and norms of a larger peer group.

    Of course this all begins to change as they become more involved with a substance on a regular basis and begin to feel the increase in negative consequences. Then this analogy no longer accurately applies to the circumstances.

    Brighid, you stated the following: “Both Richard’s advocacy for addicts and JDoe’s advocacy for those of us who are not addicts can exist simultaneously and with mutual respect. There is no need to conflate the two, and doing so only re-entangles a situation that JDoe is trying very hard to remediate.”

    My comment was NOT principally some type of advocacy for addicts. My overall point is focused on how best for all of us to take on the overall damage done by benzodiazepines and their reckless and damaging promotion in our society.

    I’m sort of saying in another way: “make the necessary distinctions between addiction and iatrogenic dependence but unite ALL who can be united in this struggle.”

    All the victim/survivors of iatrogenic benzo dependence have a lot in common with the thousands of family members who lost a loved one THIS year from an opiate/benzo cocktail.

    And unfortunately 99% of those family members have NO idea that benzodiazepines had anything to do with their loved ones death. In fact, many do not even know what a “benzo is.

    We need to collectively find a way to change this reality for the millions of potential benzo victims out there so they can know ALL the ways benzos harm human beings.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • FG and JDoe

    I have agreed with the position that people who suffer from iatrogenic dependence from benzodiazepines should be viewed completely different than people with an addiction. This distinction is very important to make for all the reasons stated.

    However, the reality is that the benzodiazepine crisis in this country is wreaking havoc within many sectors of our society. It has created pain, disabling forms of dysfunction, and tragic death in increasing numbers. Its connection to the opiate overdose epidemic is one of those areas where worsening addiction and death is a common outcome. My estimates made in a recent blog were that at least 15 people a day die possibly connected to opiate/benzo overdoses. The total figure for daily fatalities connected to benzos is probably much higher when you look at suicides, or the inadvertent combination of benzos with other sedative hypnotics and/or barbiturates.

    As we continue to clearly make the distinction between iatrogenic dependence and addiction, the point of our broader struggle should be to expose ALL the ways benzos (especially the irresponsible role of Psychiatry, Big Pharma, and the medical establishment in promoting them) are causing great damage throughout our entire society.

    Am I the only one who had a problem with the following sentence?:

    “To mislabel or mistreat them as addicts is another violation. Just as it is intolerable to turn rape victims into the accused, it is also wrong to treat iatrogenic benzo sufferers as if they deserve their suffering by using terminology that implies that they brought it upon themselves.”

    Is it not important to critically question or review such a statement? This should not have to take anything away from such an overall valuable and important blog.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This article from Truthout is a good read. Another reason to oppose this new law, in addition to fact that it takes away civil liberties, is that it will serve as a deterrent for people to seek some type of support or help now fearing that they will be incarcerated or forced to go through painful withdrawal. All this may lead to MORE opiate overdose deaths rather than fewer.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JDoe

    Just as I responded to Part 1 enthusiastically and very supportive, I once again commend you on the work you are doing and on the important content of your main arguments in this blog. You have helped educate me and others about the scientific AND political importance of using the words “addiction” and ‘iatrogenic dependence” correctly.

    I believe I totally get the significance of what you are advocating for and how this can be an extremely valuable organizing campaign to help support benzo victims/survivors and also expose those responsible for these crimes.

    What I am about to say should not be viewed as any type of criticism or counter current to the work you are doing. I am seeking greater clarity on the broader issues connected to this blog including the question of 1) who is ultimately responsible for the benzodiazepine crisis? and 2) Is it necessary and correct to put up an IMPENITRABLE wall between the problems of iatrogenic benzo dependence and the issue of addiction in society, and how addiction victims/survivors are treated by the System?

    First off on the issue of blame, you stated that it mainly lies with “…pharma, with the DEA, and the medical providers…”

    I believe the principle responsibility for the benzo crisis involves the collusion between Big Pharma AND the American Psychiatric Association (APA) ( and Psychiatry in general). Robert Whitaker’s and Lisa Cosgrove’s new book “Psychiatry Under the Influence” clearly exposes the early history of the benzo explosion in this country by showing the KEY role that the APA played (in collusion with Big Pharma) to promote Xanax and other benzos for the treatment of Panic Disorder and other Anxiety Disorders. Without this collusion between these two entities there would not be 90 plus million prescriptions for these drugs throughout the U.S.

    It is very critical to identify and target the principle role of Psychiatry in these crimes, not only because it is true, but also, because it influences how we strategize and conduct the struggle to end these abuses in the future of our movement.

    Secondly, We must be very careful in our delineation of the differences between “addiction” and “iatrogenic dependence” that we don’t end up stigmatizing people with addiction problems and ignore the fact they are ALSO victimized by the medical establishment and the current mental health system.

    JDoe, you stated the following:

    ” To mislabel or mistreat them as addicts is another violation. Just as it is intolerable to turn rape victims into the accused, it is also wrong to treat iatrogenic benzo sufferers as if they deserve their suffering by using terminology that implies that they brought it upon themselves.”

    I would like you to rethink how you characterized those people with addiction problems in the above statement. I know there was no intention to stigmatize people, but this statement could be viewed with very negative and misleading implications.

    Nobody chooses to become an addict. It is often a process that creeps up on a person and takes over their lives without them being fully aware of what is actually going on until it ‘s too late. People often believe they are taking their alcohol or drugs recreationally as “prescribed” by the common or similar actions of their peers.

    Some people never seem to develop a problem with these substances (although I believe anyone can become addicted in the right circumstances). We don’t know exactly why others seem to unknowingly cross that “line” into addiction where the substance seems to control them more than they can control “it.”

    Nobody “deserves” to suffer with addiction problems nor did they “bring it on themselves.” These are problems fundamentally rooted in conditions of a poverty laden and trauma based society. People with addiction problems are NOT masochists who deliberately go on harming themselves. They are of “two minds”; one being a strong desire to stop if possible, as well as, the other that wants to continue the behavior or sees no possibility of stopping..

    People with addiction issues do make bad “choices” especially AFTER they become aware of their problem and have been exposed to the options related to seeking recovery. Recovery is usually a process leading to an “event”; the decision to finally stop, once and for all. However, bad habits are hard to break (with physical and mental cravings and urges) and relapses are often part of this learning process.

    People with addiction problems in this society are treated horribly by the System. Billions of dollars (legal and illegal) are made off of substance addiction within our society – both the sale of the substances and the mistreatment of the people seeking help. Addiction victims/survivors have become major guinea pigs for a host of psychiatric labels and psychiatric drugs prescribed as “magic bullets” for imaginary “diseases.”

    Psychiatry has played a major role in seizing on the culture of addiction in our society as a way to expand the public’s iatrogenic dependence on a whole different category of mind altering substances. It is here where we want to be careful about creating an IMPENETRABLE WALL between the concepts of “addiction” and “iatrogenic dependence.”

    Benzodiazepines are, in reality, highly addictive drugs even though that is NOT how the overwhelming majority of people prescribed them are in fact USING them. However, many people with already established addiction problems are also prescribed benzos and other psychiatric drugs that cause iatrogenic dependence. Because they have a history of misusing and playing mind games with the use of various substances they will frequently use their new prescriptions in a similar way as they did their main “drug of choice.” Here again we would have to clearly place the “blame” on the prescribers for recklessly promoting the use of these legal drugs, but the new drug problem also very much dovetails with the nature of their troubled relationship with other substances.

    This becomes very complicated when examining the connection between the opiate epidemic and the benzo crisis in this country. People dependent and/or addicted to opiates very often seek out benzodiazepines (at least 60% of opiate users) to magnify their “high” or drug effect. These people do experience anxiety in their lives and have too easy of a time acquiring legally prescribed benzos from doctors. Keep in mind also that today most people (60%) become heroin addicts through the prolonged use of legally prescribed opiates by irresponsible doctors and the related criminal actions of Big Pharms.

    Once again, in this case shouldn’t these opiate addicted people be viewed as victims of the System even before they start adding benzos to their drug cocktail? And I need to remind people again just how deadly this whole process becomes – when AT LEAST 30% OF ALL FATAL OPIATE OVERDOSES INVOLVE THE DECISIVE COMPONENT OF BENZODIAZEPINES IN THE DEADLY MIX OF DRUGS.

    When it comes to future exposure of psychiatric abuse and today’s oppressive mental health system I believe it would be a mistake to unnecessarily wall off some of the intimate connections between the current benzodiazepine crisis and the epidemic of opiate overdose fatalities that is raging throughout the country. IF anything we need to HIGHLIGHT the connection between these two separate BUT related institutional and systemic crimes. This is, in my view, Psychiatry’s weakest link at the present time.

    Should we unnecessarily separate or wall off these issues because we fear that people who have been become iatrogenically dependent on benzos will somehow be lumped in with societies’ other victims of addiction? I think this would be a mistake on several different levels.

    I am prepared to make it very clear and use the language of iatrogenic dependence when describing anyone whom Psychiatry and the medical establishment have caused to become dependent on any prescribed drug (psychiatric or otherwise). I grasp the importance of the use of this particular language in this situation.

    While I plan to fight for these changes in language I am acutely aware of what’s at stake for Psychiatry and Big Pharma, and how desperate they will be to avoid criticism, and how they will continue to promote a narrative of “unstable patients” who are misusing potentially “addictive” drugs when benzo dependence takes over. We have our work cut out for us as we do with many other issues related to the System’s distortions about “mental illness” and their so-called curative “medications.”

    We shouldn’t hesitate to make the distinctions between iatrogenic dependence and addictions, NOR should we avoid dealing with some of the connections between the ways the System creates and then stigmatizes both benzo dependent people and those with addiction problems. In the end their reasons for doing this have similar origins as well as a similar purpose for preserving their oppressive System.

    JDoe, I hope you can appreciate the importance of some of the questions I am raising about how we ultimately seek to address OR avoid the issue of addictions when if comes to the multiple forms of oppression spewed out by this system and its resulting victims. I hope this is received as comradely feedback for I have deep respect for the important work you are doing and thank you again for the education you have provided. I believe If we find a way to address both these issues in a clear AND connected way I think we can advance each individual struggle as well as weaken the source of our mutual oppression.

    In that spirit I was wondering what your response and feedback would be to my recent blog titled “Benzodiazepines: Psychiatry’s Weakest Link”?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bigfish

    Congratulations in finding a way to get off these drugs INSPITE of those who were suppose to be giving you medical care.

    You might want to click on ” writers” at the top of the blog page and read my blog (Richard D. Lewis) titled “The Manufacture and Maintenance of Oppression: A Very Profitable Business.” Also read two blogs by Jill Littrel titled “The Medical Model Discovers Heroin Addiction” and “Always a Mystery: Why Do Drugs Come and Go?” These three blogs speak to your situation in many ways.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Markps2

    You stated: ” In both drug addiction and hoarding the person is not in control of their actions. They apparently have no choice.”

    People with addictions DO have a choice. It is ultimately a CHOICE that allows people to stop their addiction. This is part of the reason why it should not be classified as a disease, in addition to the fact that there are no biological markers.

    People may have to struggle to overcome physical (and cognitive) urges and cravings, part of which are compulsive thoughts to continue the negative behavior.

    No body chooses to become an addict. It is usually a process that creeps up on a person until they finally realize that the drugs, alcohol, or other addictive behavior seems to controls them more then they can control IT.

    Then they must find a way to overrule those thoughts that justify continuing the addictive behavior and develop new thoughts and behaviors that lead to different and more healthy choices.

    I believe many of the same concepts also apply to overcoming hoarding behaviors and the thoughts that justify those habits.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Delorfinis

    You seem invested in still viewing addiction as some sort of brain disease when there is no definitive evidence to support this contention.

    Even though K. Kendler is a brilliant geneticist, he, himself, has been VERY invested in trying to support the growth of Biological Psychiatry. To back up this point, he has made statements showing great disappointment when his profession has so far been unable to find the “Holly Grail,” that is, definitive proof of some genetic marker for that which gets labeled as “mental illness.”

    He has been part of those scientists and doctors hell bent on finding evidence to prove various “genetic theories of original sin.” All of this serves the agenda of those that want to blame “bad” genes and society’s victims rather that be critical of the systemic institutional oppression inherent within our economic and political system.

    Are there some genetic factors in addiction, maybe. We do know that people who have a higher tolerance for alcohol seem to be more prone to becoming addicted. Perhaps because they feel the positive effects for a longer period before some of sedative and more toxic effects take hold.

    Also, there is some evidence that Asian people do not process alcohol as efficiently therefore they may suffer some negative physical effects (more than most people) that deters them from drinking excessively.

    Also, I once saw a presentation which theorized that people from Celtic countries that endured the potato famine may have consumed whiskey and other self made forms of alcoholic beverages as a way to obtain sugar based calories to avoid starvation. The contention was that over several generations this may have genetically resulted in future generations having a higher tolerance to alcohol, thus be more prone to addiction.

    This is still in the realm of speculation. And even if we found out that some people were more predisposed to addiction it may have very little meaning in today’s world given just much is wrong with the majorly flawed environments that surround us.

    I believe ALL human beings are genetically prone to develop addictions and the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness.” No body stands above this happening to them in the right circumstances in a particular person’s life. And most importantly, all human being are genetically predisposed for *recovery* from these adaptive behaviors or coping mechanisms.

    Both forms of these coping mechanisms (addiction and “symptoms” such as depression and anxiety etc.) serve an important evolutionary function for our species. They only become a problem when they get stuck in the “on” position.

    Delorfinis, you also mentioned “chronic pain” being a topic of interest to you. As to the issue of the human body’s natural tendency to adapt and seek a state of homeostasis in reaction to outside chemical added to the body, you might want to read up on “opioid induced hyperalgesia.”

    This raises serious questions about the efficacy of the long term use of opioid pain drugs and the subsequent related proliferation of pain clinics in this country that began in the middle 1990’s. This is all intimately connected to opioid epidemic that is raging throughout the country and raises serious questions about the complicit role of the pharmaceutical industry and certain sections of the medical establishment.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Delorfinis

    There is no scientific evidence that addiction is a disease. This fallacy is part of Biological Psychiatry’s disease/drug based medical model of so-called “treatment.” It also serves the narrow interests of the 12 Step dominated addiction treatment industry as well, and stands as an impediment to people seeking permanent solutions for long standing addiction problems.

    See my first blog at MIA titled “Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease Model.” http://www.madinamerica.com/2012/09/addiction-biological-psychiatry-and-the-disease-model-part-1/

    Name another disease that you can wake up one morning and decide to stop a certain behavior and you no longer have any of the negative “symptoms” associated with that behavior.

    You cannot wake up and decide to no longer have diabetes or cancer, but you can decide to stop drinking or using certain drugs. Now this decision process may be difficult and complex, but never the less, it is still fundamentally a cognitive choice or decision.

    Addiction is usually a “process.” Recovery is a process leading to an “event.”

    I hope this helps clarify your questions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JD

    Thanks for your responses.

    On the issue of “informed consent,” many psychiatrists and doctors perform a version of so-called informed consent by telling you the dangers (or having you sign a document indicating you were informed/warned) but then go right ahead and negligently prescribe the drugs beyond 2-4 weeks. They do this either out of ignorance or nefariously knowing they will have a patient “forever.”

    Benzos are so damned effective in the short term and the doctors know this. This appeals to the worst of their “Dr. Feelgood” persona. Of course, the patient/victim in these circumstances is usually in a state of desperation due to current problems/stressors and related conflicts with their environment. It is the overriding responsibility of the doctor in these situations to redirect the patient to other avenues and resources to solve their problems with anxiety or insomnia.

    “Do no harm” is suppose to be their guiding mantra in giving medical care to people. Just as with antibiotics, doctors need to set safe boundaries and know when and how to say “No.” They are failing massively in this area of medicine and Big Pharma deserves more than half the blame.

    The negligence and harm done with benzos in today’s world, when looked at from the broadest perspective (numbers harmed and damage done), may represent one of Psychiatry’s greatest crimes against humanity. We must expose these crimes and provide much needed help to all the victims/survivors. I still believe it should be the number one focus of our organizing efforts against psychiatric abuse at this time.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JD

    As someone who has worked with people with addictions for over 24 years and has written about and discussed benzodiazepines many times on the MIA blog, I found this article to be very informative and challenging. I certainly have been guilty at times of confusing or misusing the terms ” addiction” with “iatrogenic dependence” when discussing benzos and other prescribed drugs. This blog helps me clearly understand the scientific AND political importance of using these terms correctly; I will try to do better in the future.

    One area where these concepts can become blurred and increasingly confusing is when people prescribed benzodiazepines for the long term are also using other sedative hypnotics such as alcohol and/or other drugs classified as opiates. Now we have exponentially greater risk for a “perfect storm” of dependence or (in some cases) addiction that can often lead to death because of cardiac and lung suppression.

    Because of the high number of benzo prescriptions in the U.S. (94 million in 2013) many of these drugs end up in the street and in the hands of people with major addictions, especially with opiates. This becomes a highly sought after drug cocktail due to the synergistic expansion of the “high.”

    Currently 60% or more of opiate addicted people came to this state of being through negligent prescribing by doctors leading to iatrogenic dependence. This dependence can quickly evolve into full blown addiction and remains one of the primary causes of the opiate epidemic raging in this country, and in other developed countries throughout the world. Perhaps we need to label this as “addiction caused by iatrogenic (or medically induced) dependence.”

    We cannot repeat often enough the statistic that at least 30% of all fatalities in opiate overdoses (that are rapidly growing in numbers) involve the use of benzos – benzos are more often the decisive and fatal component in these drug cocktails (see my recent MIA blog titled “Benzodiazepines: Psychiatry’s Weakest Link.”

    JD thanks again for this blog, the benzodiazepine crisis and the complicit role of Psychiatry and Big Pharma in this oppressive tragedy needs more exposure, education, and activism. Your blogs will play an important role in this process.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I have just read through almost all of the comments to bring myself up to date on the political struggle in this thread.

    This blog and comment section is clearly a microcosm of the much larger political struggle going on in society over the institutional and cultural oppression of women. From the most obvious and overt forms of sexism to the more subtle and seemingly unconscious types, it is all here.

    I have nothing but deep respect for the consistent way that Oldhead, Humanbeing, and Uprising (to name a few of the more prolific responders) have conducted this struggle, and especially with the content of their insightful positions.

    Alex stated: “I’m not clear on why this discussion has deteriorated into personal battles and insidious attacks, although it does seem par for the course around here.”

    In my reading it was a long time after this above comment before sarcasm was finally used by a commenter to make a point; and the use of sarcasm can have a positive role in illuminating a position when certain viewpoints are especially polarized.

    Please ( someone who feels offended) point out when the first “personal” or “insidious” attacks occurred in this discussion. And be specific by explaining how it was personal and not political. For I viewed this discussion at MIA as a vitally necessary sharp political discourse that has been long overdue and absolutely essential for the success of any future revolutionary movement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    Another great blog. You have a way of consistently touching on important “hot button” issues that always draw very passionate, emotional, and political responses.

    I have stated here at MIA that the struggle against psychiatric abuse may be the last great human rights struggle, but this actually ignores the reality of the “Women Question” as we referred to it in the 60’s. The struggle against women’s oppression will go on for a long time “after the revolution” as we use to say.

    Male supremacy, and/or prejudice against women, is perhaps the most deeply engrained of all the forms of prejudice within our society; ISIS and other types of Muslim fanaticism are only one of the more extreme versions of this. “Where there is oppression there will always be resistance” and for this reason it is comforting to know that the on going ideology and practice of women’s oppression (if eventually opposed) will ultimately undermine and destroy these reactionary historical trends. They will also hold back progress in the so-called Western World, as well, if not addressed.

    Another slogan from the 60’s, “Women Hold Up Half the Sky,” highlights the absurdity of trying to think about changing the world while still holding onto these last bastions of inequality.

    I have been troubled for some time that very few people at MIA have been willing to step out and defend women’s right to control their bodies and their reproductive rights by upholding the absolute right to abortion.

    At times there have been MIA blogs that have contained anti-choice code words and several comments over the years that promote the erosion of women’s right to choose. I felt somewhat alone in calling people out on this. We must acknowledge that the Right Wing has made major inroads over the past several decades in eroding away many of the gains of the 1960’s; this must be fought against.

    You cannot pretend to be a feminist, or say you are in favor of women’s equality, if you don’t support the most vital human right for half of humanity to control their own bodies, especially reproductive rights. There can be no compromise on this issue.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Drt

    I have been on vacation and did not see your comment until today. You have a very powerful story to tell. You might consider contacting some one at Mad in America about writing up your personal story so others can learn from your experience. Thanks so much for your passionate and informative response. I wish you the best in your own struggle. With your knowledge and determination I am confident you will succeed.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The-cat

    You said: “The overriding problem with socialism is that it violates a fundamental principle of human nature: people respond to incentives. Incentives give people a reason to work, produce, perform, create, innovate, change, and do all of the other things necessary to improve the quality of life for themselves, their communities, and the nation.”

    You have turned reality on its head. Human nature is a very malleable feature of our species. It was considered human nature at one time in our history for some humans to eat other members of the species. How convenient that you have swallowed the current lie that human beings are by nature selfish and will only look out for number one and stab people in the back to get ahead; these are the incentives you are really talking about. Is this not the essence of the capitalist ethic; “expand or die and eat up your competition before they eat you up?”

    You forget that there was a time in human history when there were no classes, money, or private possessions. There were indeed incentives to cooperate out of necessity for survival. Human beings have created millions of things in this world without the type of incentives that you are talking about. It is human nature to innovate and invent things to make life easier, and also to create works of art in many forms. This has happen throughout human history when there was no direct material reward.

    Capitalism and the profit motive actually stifles creativity and the inventiveness of the human spirit by only allowing a tiny minority to engage in this type of creativity. And it only rewards discoveries that can make a profit; how narrow and limiting is this?! Just consider for a moment what inventions and creativity would be possible if more people had access to science and technology and the means to new discovery.

    There are many people who have made incredibly important discoveries in medicine and science that had no expectation of reward other than the joy of solving problems, and in many cases, the desire to help others.

    Classes and the profit motive stand as an impediment to the advance of science and human cooperation.

    Bernie Sanders is a utopian not because he believes in socialism (his own distorted version of it) but because he is deluding people into believing it is something that could be voted in within the current system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Margie and Norman

    The use of the term “medications” is not being scientific and reinforces the language of an oppressive system. These are “psychiatric drugs” that are just another form of mind altering substance. Mind altering substances have a practical purpose in some situations in this world, but they most certainly are NOT “medicating” something pathological or “diseased.”

    You CANNOT change an oppressive system by continuing to use “THEIR” language.!

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Noel

    Thanks for the clarification and the openness to critical feedback.

    On the point of where will system change primarily emanate from? I have NEVER said that I thought meaningful change would come from within the system.

    I believe people on the inside have a role to play, but it will most likely be outside events (such as economic crises, war, climate change, pandemics etc.) combined with various forms of social rebellion and upheaval that will create favorable conditions for “mental health” institutions to be dismantled.

    Most of my blogs have always posited the current mental health system within an overall oppressive profit based economic and political system. In my blog titled: “What is Biological Psychiatry – Anatomy of Power and Control” I made the following statement:

    “Today’s Biological Psychiatry has become such an essential part of the economic and political fabric holding together our present day society, including its ability and need to maintain control over the more volatile sections of the population, that its future existence may be totally interdependent on the rise and fall of the entire system itself.”

    This system is literally trying to drug away and/or incarcerate the next generation of creative agents of change. And they have had significant success with this strategy, either consciously or just as a natural oppressive outgrowth of their system.

    I think we have to do our best to avoid accepting or being influenced by the “system’s” narrative about the essence of human nature. It is their capitalist system and ideology that teaches and reinforces the belief that human beings are selfish, that is, always looking out for number one and stabbing people in the back to get ahead. For this is exactly the ethics of survival in capitalism – to accumulate and expand capital by any means necessary.

    In primitive communal societies cooperation was an essential feature of human nature out of necessity for survival. Yes, of course there was still violence against other humans on the outside of the tribes. Today, we live in the age of “freedom” where we can (and need to) choose to cooperate not just because of necessity but because it is moral and ethical, and makes the most sense for humanity as a whole.

    Today we have social production of the goods necessary to survive and mostly social living arrangements in cities and towns BUT we have private appropriation (by the one percent) of property and the goods produced collectively.

    This is a HUGE contradiction that is the source of major conflict in the world and permeates, in a negative way, every aspect of how medical care, science, and care of those psychologically distressed is handled in our society.

    These factors are all woven together and we can’t deal with any one issue without confronting the overall system that dominates every aspect of our lives.

    This will be a Long March, but it is our vision of a different world while nurturing the very best of our humanity, that will help get us where we need to go.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Noel

    Perhaps I was not clear about the way I used “settling in.” I view you as one of the most articulate critics at MIA of Biological Psychiatry and the current mental health system. The “settling in ” term was not meant in any way to characterize your analysis or current role in the system.

    I believe there is a danger for “settling in” to occur (over time) if people lower their expectations for change and are not ready for those historical moments when the conditions are ripe for qualitative leaps.

    For that reason I would suggest that “Harm Reduction” should be viewed more as a short term TACTIC in certain situations and struggles, and NOT as an overall STRATEGY for how we view working within the system or how we view trying to make major systemic change.

    If “Harm Reduction” were to become our over riding approach within the movement it would eventually lead to lowering our sights for possible revolutionary change and could easily lead to more accommodation and co-optation.

    Noel, I know you are clearly against any form of accommodation or co-optation. I am only raising some comradely critique regarding the prescriptions for the way forward and the use of certain terminology to describe our strategic orientation.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Noelle

    You have made a penetrating analysis of the way the “system” works and retains its power, and also how conformity is maintained within in it and tends to block possibilities for revolutionary change.

    I do take issue with some of your implied conclusions, especially regarding the possibilities for revolutionary change and your related presentation of the inevitable dichotomy between “science” and “ideology.”

    Your many enlightening blogs here at MIA, and my own personal conversations with you, lead me to believe you are indeed very much a firm advocate for revolutionary change and you struggle mightily with the contradictions of working inside the current mental health system. I know some of those contradictions well; I have been there for the past 24 years. But I firmly believe we must resist (with all our might) the powerful gravity pulling us on “the path of least resistance” that constantly tries to persuade us to “settle in” and lowers our expectations for revolutionary change.

    Yes, it is quite possible that the current mental health system and the overall political and economic system that has given rise to it, may not change for a long time. However, there is ALSO the possibility for major upheavals to occur in the world that can develop rapidly (sometimes when we least expect them and from places we could not foresee) that will shake every institution within the status quo to its very foundations. These events can open up opportunities for change that we currently cannot image could presently happen. I believe one past revolutionary used the phrase “hastening while awaiting” to describe the orientation we need to have in order to be ready to “seize the time” when these opportunities present themselves. This orientation is one way we can fight the tendency to “settle in” and expect less.

    Throughout your blog, when you would describe all the ways the system and typical human responses reinforce the status quo and resist change, you would always acknowledge that a few people are able (or were able) to break free from these conservative tendencies.

    It is these individuals (with their leadership abilities) who were historically able to see beyond and resist the powerful weight of the status quo in order to make breakthroughs in transforming the world. The oppressed will always seek out an ideology of liberation to counter the ideology that justifies and enforces the institutions that oppresses them.

    Science must not somehow be seen as separate or divorced from ideology; this is a false dichotomy. It is when an ideology (in a scientific way) most closely approximates the conditions within the material world, that big changes are able to occur. In other words, the ideology that guides future liberation struggles must include the very best that science can provide us at the time.

    Part of any future liberating ideology must be the inherent inclusion of the necessity for people to constantly challenge the status quo and further develop and even transform conventional thinking, thus leaving open the possibility for continuous “revolutions within the revolutions.” So ideology is not a barrier to change, but rather it is unscientific, dogmatic and rigid presentations of those ideologies that stifle or even reverse revolutionary changes.

    Many people currently working in the mental health system will become transformed in the course of future upheavals and can be won over to revolutionary change. I have always advocated for a strategy that “unites all who can be united”, this even includes dissident psychiatrists. I believe that people, at certain historical moments, can see beyond their narrow self interests; this may include seeing their own profession going out of existence or becoming something unrecognizable.

    We do not need to somehow develop lofty justifications for working inside the system, we just need to learn to live with the very intense contradictions and daily battles this environment will throw our way. To remain sane and truly ethical in this process we must seek out a liberating ideology and have intimate connections to those working for change on the outside, and most importantly, intimate connections with the more conscious survivors who have battled to overcome the damage inflicted by this oppressive system. This will help keep us honest and prevent us from “settling in” and becoming pessimistic about revolutionary change.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Phillip

    You nailed this one as is your usual practice. Every so-called open minded psychiatrist should be challenged to read and respond to this blog piece. Unfortunately, a theme of the Critical Psychiatry movement seems to be trying to find some way to salvage the profession at any cost. This will require the most artistic forms of philosophical, scientific, and moral gymnastics; an impossible and unenviable task at best.

    Phillip, I hope you read and respond to my MIA posted blog entitled “Benzodiazepines: Psychiatry’s Weakest Link.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Good point. And I would add this to the discussion, when someone who has been prescribed antidepressants (that are promoted as the solution to their problem) and they don’t get better, then they can easily conclude that they must be hopelessly “genetically defective” when these much advertised and touted SSRI’s do not work for them. This will inevitably make them feel even worse about themselves and their future possibilities of getting better.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • They should rename “Treatment Resistant Depression” as “Treatment Caused Depression,” which might be far more accurate terminology for what actually occurs for these people. The long term prescription and/or continuous changing up of SSRI’s is more likely the causative factor in not allowing the natural progression of a depressive episode to run its course.

    I hope Dr. Shipko reads and chimes in on this discussion. He has indicated in past blogs that benzodiazepines were necessary to prescribe to some of his patients who were involved in protracted withdrawal syndrome from SSRI’S. I’ve always thought that benzos would only provide more immediate reduction in anxiety but overall exacerbate a person’s problems and struggle with long term recovery. This study seems to bear this out.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • jm

    Thanks for your very thoughtful comments and personal account of benzodiazepine use.

    I have used the phrase, “rarely, if ever” prescribed beyond 2-4 weeks. You have brought up some of the possible exceptions that may require longer initial prescriptions. It is so irresponsible for doctors to prescribe these drugs without some serious education, warnings, and very close monitoring of their use.

    Your point about drug testing is cautionary. You might have to disclose your gastric problems and the occasional need for benzodiazepines in your interview process to avoid being viewed as having some type of addiction problem. However, I am not sure if benzos are tested for; they may just be looking for cocaine, opiates, and pot at most work places.

    As to the friends you lost to overdoses; I extend my sympathy. Do you know if their toxicology reports included benzodiazepines in their system?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Barry

    Thanks for the positive feedback. I have made copies of your MIA blog stories to give to some of my clients. You are a true inspiration and educator to many other people. You are very fortunate to still be alive given the combos of drugs you were prescribed..

    We have much work to do to get the word out about benzos and make psychiatry pay for its culpability in this crisis.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • jontomas

    Thanks for your comments and insight. There are always some exceptions to general trends. Their are rare cases where prolonged use of antibiotics is a necessary form of medical treatment. These exceptions should not detract us from boldly propagating the dangers of this category of drug and holding Psychiatry accountable for their reckless and unconscionable role in harming millions of people with benzos.

    Benzodiazepines are usually wonderful drugs in a controlled medical environment like a medical hospital. They should rarely, if ever, be prescribed for more than 2-4 weeks. Who knows, if benzos were not used for sleep (or gastric problems) would this have eventually led to some people finding some other (now unknown) solution to their particular problems? For this we may never know the final answer.

    I did make it clear at the end of my blog that people currently using benzos should NOT become the focus of this issue or blamed for using them. The target must be placed on institutional irresponsibility and abuse.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Idy

    Thanks for sharing your family story. More of these stories need to be written about and spread broadly throughout society. I hope you continue to speak out.

    It seems that today reporting doctors/psychiatrists to medical boards is like reporting police abuse to the police department. The “white coats” and the “blue coats” all close ranks and you get nothing but silence or a complete cover up.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I agree that the mass shooting connection is a vital issue and that conditions could change where this could become the weakest link for Psychiatry. However, as bad as these shooting are, (and they certainly get a huge amount of press exposure) they don’t compare, in shear volume, to the death and destruction of people’s lives with the numbers of people damaged by benzodiazepines over the past 40 years; especially the last 15 years with its connection to the opiate overdose epidemic.

    Bruce Levine does great exposure of Psychiatry from the Left, although he stands almost alone. In the final analysis the Rightwing will never want to push too much exposure of the role of the profit motive in capitalism that fuels the pharmaceutical industry and corrupts all scientific endeavors.

    Also, Psychiatry now plays a key role in society as a means of social control over the more volatile (and potentially revolutionary) sections of society. And Psychiatry’s “genetic theories of original sin” also shift attention away from looking at systemic/institutional problems, and focuses instead on so-called “inherent” human weaknesses. For this reason I don’t believe the Right will risk completely undermining the legitimacy of Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Beckys11

    Thanks for your response and concern. Opiate pain drugs are more likely prescribed after a surgery. They are necessary and safe to prescribe when properly administered and monitored for the short term by a doctor.

    We all need to become more educated about the dangers of dependency and addiction when it comes to many categories of drugs. We cannot rely on psychiatry or the medical establishment to protect us, because they have economic and guild interests that run counter to their pledge to “Do No Harm.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ted

    Thanks for the positive feedback. The 30% role (or more) of benzos in opiate overdose fatalities is a powerful point of exposure that actually startles people when it is brought to their attention. Also, the millions of people dependent on these drugs is both sad and infuriating. Psychiatry has left us a huge opening to condemn and expose their direct role in all this.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BPDtransformation

    Thanks for the response; I always value your perspective at MIA. Psychiatry has many weaknesses and related forms of abuse. I believe that the issues of dependency and death, as it relates to benzos (with the opiate/benzo cocktail it may be at least 15 deaths or more per day), is so devastating in today’s world that it provides the greatest opportunities for the most exposure and activation.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The-Cat

    Agreed. The Disease Model, with all its genetic based theories, permeates all traditional addiction “treatment” and recovery approaches. It blames the victim and promotes the view that addiction problems can only be “managed” with psych drugs and life long attendance at Twelve Step meetings. AA/NA used to be very wary of psych drugs and psychiatry; now they have accommodated themselves to the disease based/psych drug model.

    Biological Psychiatry has sized upon and expanded our culture of addiction. Today it is a very short walk from dependence on illegal drugs to dependence on legally prescribed drugs. Permanent recovery from these problems is never discussed and is actually discouraged and labeled as a sign of “denial.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Noel

    Great blog on a most important question. You have covered all the main excuses that people working inside the system use to justify ‘force.’

    ‘Force’ apologists do not want to answer the question: how many people have committed suicide because of the accumulation of negative experiences with the prior use of ‘force’ directed against them within the current mental health system?

    Noel, I will soon write about my experiences over the last year and half challenging the ‘system’ (community mental health) from inside the ‘beast.’ It is not easy, but I am convinced that with your overall strong political stance and your well earned sense of humility, you are going to do just fine.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • To Margie and Norman Hoffman

    Several years ago I might have agreed with your position on the use of ‘force’ in “exceptional” and “extreme” circumstances such as has been written about in this blog. NO MORE! All ‘force’ must be abolished.

    Pleas read my MIA blog titled “May the ‘Force’ NEVER EVER Be with You! The Case for Abolition” here – http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/10/may-force-never-ever-case-abolition/ Also read the extensive discussion that followed this blog, which in a very comprehensive and exhaustive way covers practically every angle of this controversial topic.

    After reading this blog and discussion (combined with the many articulate and passionate comments above) then tell me if you still support the use of ‘force’ in the mental health system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Barry

    Good exposure on the benzodiazepine crisis. The statistics you cite (as bad as they are) may be actually underplaying the gravity of this problem.

    Here is a reference to a Stanford University alert put out in March of 2014 – http://www.pharmpro.com/news/2013/03/prescriptions-benzodiazepines-rising-and-risky-when-combined-opioids This reference to a study published in JAMA shows that at least 30% of all fatalities from opiate overdoses involves the deadly combination with benzodiazepines.

    In Massachusetts last year (2014) state officials attribute over 1200 people deaths to opiate overdoses. This is probably a low ball figure due to the fact that toxic drug screens are not done on many poor people who die in certain areas. Their death certificate will only read “cardiac arrest.”

    Thirty percent of 1200 equals 400 deaths (or more) in just the state of Massachusetts alone possibly linked to benzodiazepines. Most opiate addicts know how to use their opiates; it is often the case that they forgot about the 3 Xanax they took earlier that day that turns their addiction problems into such deadly consequences.

    There is an opiate overdose epidemic all over the country, so multiply this situation by 50 states and you have a major human disaster in the works. Mass. state officials only want to target opioid prescription abuse and totally ignore the benzo problem and its intimate connection to the overdose death crisis.

    So far, psychiatry has been able to skate free without being condemned for its complicit role in these deaths. We can no longer allow this to happen. Benzodiazepines may be psychiatry’s weakest link. We must exploit that weakness to break the chain of psychiatric oppression.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • JeffreyC

    I agree with the concerns you are raising. My experience working with addiction problems in community mental health tells me that a certain percentage of people are very sensitive to pot and it can trigger uncomfortable and disturbing effects for them.

    Often people’s relationship with the drug changes or evolves over time. Some people’s first experience is very bad and they avoid its use thereafter. For others their early experience may be very pleasant and fun but after a period of time (months or years) these experiences start shifting towards a more paranoid edge with uncomfortable anxiety.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Great interview and a very high level of discussion.

    Bpdtranssformation, I really appreciate your stance on these questions and the depth you have added to this discussion. My only quibble would be the use of the word “medications” to describe psychiatric drugs.

    TSM, while I disagree with most of what you write here I would agree with part of the following comment:

    “Society is not to answer the question about correctness of science. The obvious historical reference is Germany in the 30’s. No, science-at its most beautiful is a political, and bound only to creative destruction (to use Schumpters economic phrase).”

    Yes, the “beauty” and correctness of science is apolitical and must always remain so. However, SOCIETY must create favorable conditions for objective science to flourish and abound with great inquisitiveness and discovery.

    At this historical moment a profit based economic and political system in today’s SOCIETY is a major impediment to the development of valuable and objective science.

    Any objective and careful analysis of the role of the pharmaceutical corporations, in collusion with the leadership of modern psychiatry, reveals a story full of conscious efforts by them to distort and manipulate science to maximize corporate profits and promote the narrow guild interests of psychiatry, as well as, the overall class interests of the most wealthy and powerful elements within our current SOCIETY. This causes enormous damage to human lives.

    I believe that Robert Whitaker and Lisa Cosgrove’s new book is a necessary and very positive attempt to challenge the legitimacy of both the science and the related narrative promoted by today’s Biological Psychiatry. It is also an attempt to understand what institutions and material conditions within our SOCIETY has interfered with, and corrupted, the legitimate pursuit of objective science.

    Bob, I share your pessimism ( although I would say I am way beyond pessimism) about psychiatry changing from within. I clearly believe that society must strip psychiatry of all authority over people’s lives and that as an INSTITUTION it does NOT deserve a seat at the table when deciding how people in serious psychological distress are to be supported and helped in today’s world. Perhaps individual psychiatrists not connected to the disease/drug based model may have something to offer, but I would want them to be separate from the institution as a whole.

    My problem with the “cognitive dissonance theory,” as it has been presented so far, is that it has been abstracted from a genuine class analysis within our current society. Bob you said:

    “…the absence of condemnation, leaders in the [psychiatry] institution may be better able to see how the economies of influence have corrupted their behavior. Second, it will focus public attention on how to neutralize the economies of influence as a solution to the corruption, as opposed to stirring public anger toward individuals within the institution.”

    I believe that the top leadership of the APA and other KOL’s for Biological Psychiatry have already sold their souls to the profit god of Big Pharma. The social role that they have created and now promote for today’s psychiatric/pharmaceutical/industrial/complex has evolved into a necessary and integral part of the American Imperialist empire.

    To create favorable conditions for systemic change, including for rank and file psychiatrists to jump ship, so to speak, we must target and CONDEMN the LEADERS of modern psychiatry. They have clearly sided with the class interests of the most powerful forces within our society and have caused enormous harm to millions of people.

    Just as I believe it would be correct to call for the prosecution of the very top leaders of Big Pharma, based on the social and criminal damage done in the world, I also believe that many of the top leaders of Biological Psychiatry fall into the same category.

    I believe that the history of social change has proven that this degree of polarization (using condemnation of high crimes against humanity, including those that perpetrate such crimes) is required as a prerequisite for major systemic transformation.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Norman

    I like some of your ideas and the effort you are making to be a different kind of doctor/psychiatrist.

    Consider not calling psychotropic drugs “medications.” To call them “medications” heavily implies the whole disease concept of “mental illness” and reinforces everything that is wrong with the current mental health system.

    Psychiatric drugs are mind altering substances just like cocaine and opiates. Certain mind altering substances may, in some circumstances and for a short period of time, have an overall positive effect on a human being. However, there needs to be an accurate cost/benefit analysis completed to avoid serious harm in the long run.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Tabita

    Great blog and great story.

    You said: ” We can do all the mindfulness meditation and yoga we want (and these are very helpful practices!), but unless we change the system—in a big way—our kids will continue to suffer.”

    This sentence jumped off the page for me. It is so important that you pointed out the limitations of focusing only on individual solutions to these problems. There needs to be a unity between “micro” and “macro” approaches to these problems, but major revolutionary systemic change will ultimately be necessary for the broad masses of people to even stand a chance against the Psychiatric/Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex.

    In my extended family I have a very similar family drama unfolding for a young preteen girl. I only hope the outcome will be as positive as yours. So far my attempts to provide education have met with much resistance and very mixed responses.

    Keep writing and speaking out. We need more people like you taking this type of strong advocacy role.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Norman

    You said: “While everything written here about benzodiazepines is true, the sad reality is that they are among the safest of the psychiatric medications.”

    What do you mean by “safest”? Do you mean that it is hard to overdose or die by taking a handful of benzos. While that may be true you seem to have missed the essential issues being raised here in this blog and discussion.

    Benzos are the perhaps the most abused and dangerous and yes, least “safest” of all categories of drugs (especially outside of a medical – non-psychiatric – environment) based on the overall harm and damage done in the world.

    When benzos are combined with other sedative-hypnotics or opioid drugs this combination actually becomes one of the most lethal drug cocktails on the planet.

    Benzos create dependency and medically induced addiction leaving millions of people, mainly women, in a heightened state of almost perpetual fear. These drugs are emotionally crippling, stripping its victims of any confidence in using or developing natural coping mechanisms.

    Today, it is the EXCEPTION for benzos to be prescribed for two weeks to get some one through a brief emotional crisis. No one HERE is suggesting that should NEVER be done.

    I believe the vast majority of the 90 million benzo prescriptions in 2013 (40-50 million for Xanax) were LONG TERM prescriptions; this is a crime of immense proportions.

    I have a close friend who suffers terribly after 20 years of being drugged with benzos, as part of a cocktail of other psych drugs. The clinic where I work has probably well over a thousand long term benzo prescriptions written every month.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    There can’t be enough written about the dangers of benzos and the onerous role of psychiatry and Big Pharma in promoting and profiting from their prescriptions and sales.

    It must be repeated over and over again that over 30% of all people who die from opiate overdoses have benzos in their bloodstream. In fact, the expansion of the heroin/opiate epidemic in this country parallels the rise in benzo prescriptions in the same time period. This combination of drugs represents “The Perfect Storm of Addiction.”

    In Massachusetts the governor just came out with a new plan to address the opioid epidemic that has taken so many lives in recent years.. While this report targets prescription drug abuses related to opiates, there is not a single mention of the benzodiazepine problem. Formal complaints about the benzo problem have recently been made to the Ma. Department of Public Health and they have refused to take any action.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Norman Hoffman is a doctor and a clinician.

    Therefore, I would not expect him to know that writing one very long paragraph without breaking up particular groups of sentences into many smaller segments makes for very difficult problems reading blog responses in the discussions.

    In fact, some readers (as noted in other blog discussions) actually avoid completing such responses due to focusing difficulties and the tediousness of sorting out the essential arguments presented in long paragraphs.

    We all want to be heard and understood and appreciated; proper spacing (including double spacing) helps this happen.

    I would like to know what part of theloniousmonk’s criticisms of Robert Whitaker he appreciated and those that he, perhaps, did not appreciate.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jill

    I agree with your above comment.

    The profit motive and the capitalist system stands as a major impediment to the advancement of both science and medicine in the modern world.

    To those who would suggest breaking up the big corporations and going back to a pre-monopoly stage of capitalism – this is simply not possible.

    It fails to understand the nature of the capitalist law of value and how the class political structure defending such a law will always protect those who seek the highest rate of profit by any means.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    It does not take rocket science to know why people from poor Third World countries want to come to the richest country in the world.

    The key question is – how did America accumulate all of its wealth? Are Americans more intelligent and hard working and/or genetically superior to the rest of the world?

    OR could it just perhaps be that America is an economic and military endowed empire that has dominated ands exploited Third World countries (their labor power and valuable natural resources) to obtain its number one position in the world hierarchy?

    Peter Breggin, as well as you Duane, have a dual character to your overall political outlook. I am not afraid to acknowledge Breggin’s major contributions to our movement or point out when you are right on target with your criticisms of Biological Psychiatry, nor am I afraid to criticize you or Breggin when your political compass goes far astray.

    I choose to live in the country where I have the best understanding and ability to make change in the world. What is wrong with that?

    And Duane, do you want to NOW defend those political decisions that (I am quite confident that you supported at the time) that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Alex

    You have misunderstood the main point in this particular dialogue. For the most part Sandra did respond to my comment above. Thank you, Sandra, for your thoughtful response.

    My main point above was to say to Sandra that one does not have to DIRECTLY experience psychiatric oppression in order to end up becoming anti-psychiatry or working towards hastening psychiatry’s exit from the historical stage.

    Her response to Ted comment above seemed to imply that Ted’s strong anti-psychiatry position was based on his FEELINGS connected to his DIRECT experience as a psychiatric survivor, as opposed to perhaps a well though out scientific, philosophical, and political analysis which derives f more from INDIRECT experience.

    Having read Ted’s blog and talked with him in person, I would conclude that it involves both direct AND indirect experience.

    My anti-psychiatry position comes not from being a psych survivor but from studying the science of psychiatric drugs, psychiatric survivor narratives, and seeing up front and personal the devastating affects that Biological psychiatry has had on people (including close friends) while working in the community mental health system for over 22 years.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jill

    A good blog with some interesting facts and food for thought.

    I would add the following points:

    1) The proliferation of benzodiazepine prescriptions over the past 20 years parallels the epidemic rise in opiate overdose deaths. Over 30% of all opiate overdoses involve the use of ‘benzos.’ We cannot talk about the dangers of this epidemic without talking about ‘benzos.’ Many opiate addicts know how to use their opiates but they often forget about other sedative hypnotics they consumed earlier in the day.

    2) Drug addiction in society involves both a “supply” and a “demand” problem and they interpenetrate on different levels. On the one hand there is the profit motive along with medically induced dependency leading to full blown addiction, and on the other, there is the daily traumas arising out of poverty along with other forms of societal alienation that lead people to seek various forms of “self medication.”

    3) Prolonged use of pain drugs for most people will not lead to a positive result. There is increasing evidence that pain thresh holds are lowered through the chronic use of these drugs making people even MORE sensitive to pain. There is a noted phenomena of “opioid-induced hyperalgesia” which is a medical term describing one aspect of this tendency towards greater pain sensitivity.

    4) Methadone and suboxone are highly profitable to Big Pharma and to those doctors and clinics who have these programs. These programs are poorly designed and poorly run with an inherent tendency towards keeping people on “maintenance.” Even non-profits can subsidize other parts of their enterprise that are less financially viable.

    5) We need more than true “informed consent” when it comes to drug distribution in society. Harmful drugs need to NOT be approved for public distribution and possibly removed from the market place when proven dangerous. And harmful drug distribution practices need to be strictly regulated with clear punishments for violations.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To Bob, Sandra, and Saul

    I am not so sure about CDT as an explanation for this phenomena, but certainly history tells us that fundamental change will have to mainly come from outside institutions that are functioning as an overall oppressive force in the world.

    Bush, Rumsfeld et all in the U.S. government, who launched the Iraq war that killed hundreds of thousands of people, still believe to this day that they were acting honorably and doing what was best for their country (and the world) at the time.

    There are many philosophical, ideological, and political forms of thinking that comprise the totality of their overall class outlook and the elitism of their personal self interest. Carefully examining those belief systems (including extreme forms of American Exceptionalism and its related world mission) helps explain their actions and their self justification against any form of critical appraisal.

    Challenging the scientific and moral legitimacy of psychiatry (including those who define themselves as abolitionists) and saying that it causes far more harm than good, is what really gets people’s FULL attention and FORCES them to more fully examine their historical role in the present day world. Initial defensiveness and more narrow self interest often holds people back from completing a thorough going evaluation of the social role of the institutions they have so much invested in.

    I discovered Breggin in 1991 just as I started work for a Masters Degree in counseling psychology. As a psychiatrist Breggin was doing great scientific and moral exposure (an unflinching one at that) of the role of modern psychiatry in the world at that time. Whitaker” book (Anatomy…) came on the scene at a more opportune time after there had been a significant enough accumulation of damaging experience with Biological Psychiatry that it was able to capture far more attention.

    More scientific and political exposure (shining the light on) Biological Psychiatry will be important in the coming period, but it will take FAR MORE decisive political struggle from the OUTSIDE (including challenging all the institutions that created and benefit from modern psychiatry) to ultimately end all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    And one does NOT have to be a psychiatric survivor (Sandra, you did not yet respond to my above comment about indirect learning) in order to more fully commit to such a moral and political mission.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Sandy

    You said: “Having read about your experiences as a child, I conclude I would feel as you do if I had experienced what you experienced. I have come to understand that I will not find common ground with the abolitionists among the readers here…”

    Don’t be so sure about ruling out the possibility of you or other psychiatrists eventually becoming abolitionists (as opposed to abolishing psychiatry I prefer we remove its power, prove its illegitimacy, and allow it to wither away).

    Your statement seems to deny the role of learning through INDIRECT experience and knowledge (such as the political and scientific exposures of of Whitaker and Breggin etc.) and the powerful narratives of psychiatric survivors.

    All these combined can definitely lead someone who is NOT a survivor to a point in their life where there is an ethical and moral imperative to act in powerful and profound ways to oppose all forms of psychiatric abuse, including perhaps disavowing their own narrow self interests in their career as a therapist, psychologist or psychiatrist.

    This does not necessarily mean someone needs to resign or leave these professions, but only that they find ways to raise significant resistance where they are, and be willing to take the necessary risks to arouse and educate as many people as possible for as long as possible in their job.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Norman

    We can talk about statistics all we want, but until there is a revolutionary transformation of the status quo there will always be a percentage of the masses who will inevitably be crushed by this system NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE THERAPIST OR THERAPEUTIC TECHNIQUES USED!

    This is the most important thing to take away from this discussion, in my opinion.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Added point: there is a very real distinction between what CBT actual is (in theory and in programmatic application) AND how it is actually applied in today’s world.

    Part of its failure in application (separate from the negative influences of the profit system and Biological Psychiatry’s influence) is its inherent philosophically idealist limitations as an all encompassing form of liberating theory and practice.

    CBT has pragmatic value to help some people some of the time, period!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Academic

    People say this because, more often than not, this is how CBT is employed in therapy in today’s mental health system. Do you deny this fact?

    This happens because most people doing therapy today have been negatively influenced by the theory and practice of Biological Psychiatry and/or do not have enough critical thinking skills to avoid giving their client this impression. Do you deny this fact?

    Practically every therapist at my clinic, on every progress note, indicates that CBT was employed as an intervention in the therapeutic process. How often is this actually carried out in a positive and productive manner, or without being contaminated by all the other negative influences within the community mental health system ? NOT VERY OFTEN!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Academic

    I am one of the writers here at MIA who has been partially critical of CBT (under writers you can read my blog “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: The Good, The Bad, and the Limitations” or read my comments under Ron Unger’s current blog).

    I have also used CBT for over 22 years working as a therapist in community mental health; it is a useful tool in helping some people some of the time.

    I am also a firm believer in the value of the scientific method and believe that in order for humanity of liberate itself from all forms of oppression it will be necessary for EVERYONE to become MORE scientific as one important step in this struggle.

    BUT the key issue in this entire discussion is the fact that no matter how well intension someone may be in trying to help people (including with CBT) in today’s mental health system ALL OF THIS is taking place in a profit based system dominated by Biological Psychiatry; this poisons and potentially contaminates EVERTHING we do. NOBODY can escape or stand above this reality. If people think they can avoid or stand above this reality they are suffering from a serious delusion.

    This represents the BIGGEST LIMITATION in all of our work and is the reason why mere reform of this “diseased” system will mean nothing at the end of the day.

    Academic, I hope you stick around for the Long March.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    As to your title for this blog: “CBT: Part of the Solution, Part of the Problem, An Illusion, or All of the Above?” My clear answer would be “all of the above.”

    CBT is NOT a liberating ideology; it is a pragmatic tool that in the right hands can help some people sometimes, period

    You said: “And I definitely don’t believe we have to wait until we can somehow overthrow the entire mental health system before we help liberate anyone!”

    I never said or implied that people seeking help within the system cannot, or should not, be helped now. I have worked over 22 years in community mental health and I am acutely aware of the real help that some people receive, BUT I am also aware, that because of the control and influence of Biological Psychiatry, more HARM than help is happening in the real world out there.

    You said : ” And I think real revolution in the mental health system is more likely to happen if we first open up more cracks in the existing system, bringing in methods that really help empower people in a healthy way. I think good CBT can be part of opening up such cracks.”

    This approach is backwards and will NOT lead to a “revolution” in the care of people in states of extreme psychological distress. While some change and struggle is necessary to take place WITHIN today’s mental health system, the change and struggle necessary to transform the status quo will (and MUST) take place OUTSIDE the current system!

    The “change from within” reformist type strategies will only lead to dead ends and demoralization. When I finally tell the story of the current struggle I am involved in WITHIN the system, it will only reaffirm my above statement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    In my blog, “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: The Good, The Bad, and the Limitations”,which you referenced above, I stated the following:

    “So let’s get real about CBT. At the beginning and end of the day CBT is nothing more than a pragmatic and sometimes useful tool that has serious limitations due to its’ fundamentally “idealist” philosophical origins in understanding the world. CBT comes out of the school of thought that says we are what we think we are, or if we take it a step further, “I think therefore I am.” This way of thinking implies that there is no material reality independent of our thoughts; so there can be multiple realities based on any one person’s interpretation of the world. This is in direct opposition to a “materialist” philosophical perspective that says “I am therefore I think.” The latter view postulates that thoughts, ideas, and theories come from one’s interaction with the material world. If that world is, in fact, oppressive to the humans interacting with it, this will be directly reflected in the thinking and behavior of those human beings. Of course when ideas (emerging from interaction with the material world) are subsequently put into action they can influence and change the material world in an ongoing dialectic or spiral development of change.

    CBT, being part of the “idealist” school of thought, tends to sever the relationship between the specific nature of the material conditions in the environment that gives rise to a person’s thoughts, and leaves it up to the interpretation of the listener (often a therapist) to determine whether or not the environmental source of those thoughts was actually traumatic or oppressive or more positive and humane.

    So in reality the pragmatic value of CBT as a therapeutic method (in the short run) can be achieved without any type of moral compass or historical barometer to determine if the end result actually advances the cause of humanity, or if it only meets the immediate selfish needs of its user in the moment. In other words, we need to ask the important question: for whom is the CBT method being used, and for what purpose?”

    This above quote represents more of the essence of my argument about the limitations of CBT. Does it fundamentally promote the transformation of both the environment and self within an overall historical forward motion for all of humanity, OR does it tend to promote a transformation of individual thought and behavior to facilitate an accommodation to, and acceptance of the status quo, no matter how oppressive? Obviously, I believe it tends (in its overall practice) to do the latter.

    Ron, my overall reaction to your blog is as follows:

    1) Based on how you describe your approach counseling, if myself, or any other person I cared about, was in a psychological crisis, I would want someone like you to be the person coaching me, or them, through that crisis.

    2) I would choose you NOT because of your knowledge of CBT methodology, but because of your common sense, compassion, and wisdom about facing difficult life experiences. Your knowledge and PARTICULAR approach to CBT would just be ONE aspect of that overall wisdom.

    3) You have taken the basic theory and practice of CBT and combined it with several other approaches and experiences in an attempt to somehow render it more profound than it actual is in the real world.

    4) Practically every therapist today would state that they use aspects of CBT in their practice. Every progress note written in the community mental health system must indicate what interventions were used, and as a matter of course CBT will be listed. The whole therapy session could have been a discussion about baseball or cooking and CBT will still be listed in the progress note. In this context it means virtually nothing and does not really exist.

    5) Most therapists only know the general concepts of CBT. Very few therapists actually use the strict CBT guidelines in the way they conduct a therapy session, and if they did use these strict guidelines in every session or situation, they would be often ignoring the needs of the person seeking help, and often harming that person if they failed to be trauma informed or deeply aware of the oppressive nature of the world we live in. Dan Mackler has correctly stated in his writings that a good therapist must actually be some type of Radical or Activist for social change.

    6) Good therapy and therapists are a rare phenomena in today’s world because of the oppressive gravity of all the institutions in today’s world, and especially the pernicious influence of the theories and practice of Biological Psychiatry; its poison runs very deep and affects all of us (even the well intentioned) in so many ways.

    7) Discussion of more liberating approaches to solving complex human problems without discussing the need for revolutionary changes in the world, including the complete dismantling of the current mental health system, is nothing more than a pipedream.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • David

    All methadone or suboxone (opiate replacement) programs offer, or require or highly recommend some type of so-call “treatment.” I see some clients (for counseling) who are in both types of programs despite the fact that the clinic where I work does not provide these opiate drugs.

    The key question in all this is WHAT THE HELL DOES “TREATMENT” ACUALLY MEAN!? Most opiate addicts will take most therapists (and doctors) and eat them and up and spit them out for lunch.

    This is my way of saying that to exist for any length of time in opiate addiction requires very sophisticated forms of survival techniques to continuously procure these drugs and manipulate people around you to believe you do not have a problem or that you are on the verge of solving your problem or that you will die without their financial or domestic help. Opiate addicts often have the deepest levels of a denial system, more complex than any other form of addiction.

    I ‘ve been doing addiction work for over 24 years; 22 years in a city with high levels of opiate addiction; I think I have seen it all, so to speak. And while I believe I have helped many people over the years, quite often I feel like I don’t know what the hell I’m doing when I confront the complexities of what this system offers up as so-called treatment for opiate addicts.

    There is very little appropriate help for opiate addiction in our society. I don’t believe the “treatment” at your clinic is essentially any better than other mainstream approaches that fail most of the time. You sound like you are accepting the “lesser of the evils” and the overall narrative promoted by the leaders of Biological Psychiatry’s status quo. Our society has basically given up on the belief that opiate addicts can achieve abstinence, they have clearly opted instead for other methods of social control using methadone and suboxone; we must oppose this.

    Most programs discourage tapering until a long period has passed without any violations of protocol. Only a tiny percentage can meet these requirements. And then for those few who do taper to a low dose of these drugs there is NO WAY to acquire access to appropriate levels of smaller titrations of these drugs to avoid uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms. This is one reason why relapse rates are so high.

    Today’s mental health system (operating in a profit based economy) turns doctors into greedy entrepreneurs and vulnerable patients into commodities. Some suboxone doctors (with an allowed caseload of 100 patients) can make a half a million dollars a year. Patients without jobs and living in poor communities will also inevitably end up selling some of their suboxone to increase their personal income. This is how it goes within a class based society.

    This entire system must be dismantled in order to create the necessary conditions for real change and successful options for all people experiencing extreme forms of psychological distress, including those with addiction problems.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • David
    You are promoting a fairytale and covering up for another example of Biological Psychiatry’s disease model.

    You said: “Richard, I think they [methadone and suboxone programs] are part of the solution for some people.”

    Some people believe that Electro-shock is part of the solution for depression because it has allegedly helped a certain few individuals; this DOES NOT make it a successful “treatment.”

    Opiate replacement programs, which you want to euphemistically call “Medically Assisted Treatment”( to reinforce the message provided by the industry promoting them) is nothing more than another failed FOR PROFIT enterprise by the pharmaceutical corporations and the medical establishment.

    Suboxone has becomet another blockbuster drug that generated $1.55 billion in U.S. sales in 2012.

    I challenge everyone to read this expose’ from the NY Times titled “Addiction Treatment With a Dark Side” printed in 2013.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/17/health/in-demand-in-clinics-and-on-the-street-bupe-can-be-savior-or-menace.html/

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    “Dare to imagine a world where helping is not professionalized, where caring is not commodified.”

    A very inspiring statement as is the launching of your new book. I have a copy in my possession and will begin reading it as soon as I finish Whitaker’s “Psychiatry Under the Influence”; can’t wait!

    Congratulations! “Dare to Struggle; Dare to Win.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • David

    I have responded very differently. Evidently you did not read my responses or my previous blog that I made reference to. Methadone and suboxone programs are still part of the problem NOT part of the solution.

    Why should we bow down and refer to these programs as “Medically Assisted Treatment” (MAT) to cover up the seriousness of opiate addiction in our society.

    This name just sugar coats the fact that they are “opiate replacement” programs and further promotes the disease concept of addiction that falls within Biological Psychiatry’s paradigm of theory and practice.

    David, are we just suppose to accept your word that you work in a program where everyone merrily tapers off synthetic opiates in two years and lives a wonderful life of total abstinence.

    This sounds like wishful thinking and a way to avoid the harsh realities involved with opiate addiction in this country and what this oppressive system we live under has to offer for so-called treatment.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jill and David

    Interesting article with many provocative points. You might want to read for critique my 2014 blog titled “The Manufacture and Maintenance of Oppression: A Very profitable Business” – you can access it above under writers or here.

    http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/04/manufacture-maintenance-oppression-profitable-business/

    The article leaves out the following important points:

    1) the opiate epidemic has origins in the 5th vital sign campaign promoted in the middle and late 1990’s by the pharmaceutical industry and certain medical leaders in pain medicine. This made it more mandatory for doctors to check pain levels at every visit and opened up doctors to punishment if they failed to prescribe all these “safe and non-addictive drugs” like oxycontin etc.

    2) the fifth vital sign campaign led to a new profitable industry and proliferation of pain clinics around the country where high numbers of pain drugs are dispensed creating the conditions for prescription abuse on a major scale. Clinics that for the most part create new addicts and actually lower the pain threshold for most people who use these drugs for an extended period of time – example “opiate induced hyperalgesia.”

    3) the opiate overdose epidemic (resulting in a huge number of deaths) is also principally fueled by the rise in medically induced benzodiazepine prescription and dependency/addiction. Benzos combined with methadone and suboxone tends to mimic a heroin high. Benzos plus heroin or other opiate magnifies the effect of all the drugs on the individual using them. OVER 30% OF DEATHS from opiate overdoses involves the use of benzos. I believe that most opiate addicts know how to handle their opiates but get into serious trouble when they combine these drugs with other sedative hypnotics, especially benzos – remember Heath Ledger and Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

    4) methadone and suboxone programs are highly profitable and principally a form of social control over a potentially volatile section of the population; they do little to stem the tide of addiction. They don’t call methadone the “orange handcuffs” for nothing.

    5) methadone accounts for 5% of the opiate prescriptions but is involved in one third of the opiate related deaths.

    6) suboxone is a very popular street drug with high amounts of its pills and strips sold to addicts as a way to avoid getting strung out or going to rehab. This may prevent people from hitting a “bottom” and seeking treatment to become abstinent. There is little evidence (that I know of) that people are successfully tapering off after a year. Read the forums online about suboxone and you get a clear sense that the doctors and clinics that dispense this drug do not know how to get people SUCCESSFULLY off of it.

    7) while Twelve Step Programs use to discourage any drug use (including psych drugs) they have (for the most part) in recent years accommodated themselves to Biological Psychiatry, and the use of methadone and suboxone. After all we can’t forget that they are based in a “diseased based” paradigm of so-called treatment.

    8) ANY drugs that perturb the endorphin receptors in the brain would seem to open the door for future mood disturbances and mitigate a person’s ability to experience pleasure, and perhaps have a negative effect on a person’s natural frustration-pain tolerance levels.

    9) all just more reasons for us to fight for major revolutionary systemic changes in society and put psychiatry in the dust bin of history; the sooner the better!!!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    Please spare us all the tired and hackneyed attacks on the possibilities of human beings developing a society where people live more collectively without the capitalist law of value polluting every sphere of our society; turning everyone and every human interaction into some type of commodity relationship.

    Many human and scientific experiments failed to achieve their desired results in the first go around. There is NOTHING inherently wrong or impossible about the ideas of collective ownership and human beings moving in the direction of a classless society; even if it takes several hundred years to achieve.

    Duane, the 1% run everything. Those who have the gold, and control the gold, make all the rules. You NEVER, in any of your comments, speak to how there can be objective science or a society where the basic needs of the people can be met when the profit motive ultimately corrupts every single human endeavor.

    The Constitution says nothing about preventing THE 1% or ANY 1% from running the whole show. There can never be real freedom if people are allowed to use private property and the profit motive as a means to exploit other people.

    Your tired right wing platitudes about “big government” mean nothing. Every one is against political bureaucracies. It is not the size of government that matters, but rather who does the government represent and who do they serve?

    I want to live in a society where EVERYONE ultimately has both the capacity and the opportunity to govern. This will NEVER, and can NEVER, happen in a profit based capitalist system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Will

    This is one of the most important blogs ever written at MIA. Your critique was deeply insightful about the current state of today’s social movements and their inherent limitations. I share your utter frustration about the major forms of institutional power and control that stand as a colossal impediment to all human progress, including being able to rid the world of all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    YES, we must follow the money and carefully examine all the “economies of influence.” And YES, putting all our eggs in single issue struggle is a dead end that will change nothing in the final analysis and lead to defeat and demoralization.

    YES, there is no fundamental difference between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to these “economies of influence.” In fact, the Democrats are THE most deceitful and dangerous because they pretend that they are for the poor and oppressed and that they have THE REFORM solutions within a totally unsalvageable system.

    BUT, your blog avoids a major elephant looming large within our collective living room. The blog fails to mention THE BARREL in which all the “bad apples” and “economies of influence” are operating – A PROFIT BASED CAPITALIST SYSTEM.

    Is it humanly possible within the material conditions of today’s capitalist world for truly objective science to be conducted on a grand scale, and for there to be the necessary political and social institutions to meet the needs of ALL the people – including basic medical care and psychological supports for those in emotional crisis???

    You advocate a movement focused on “rules of the game reform” and “getting the money out of politics.” Won’t these campaigns also become just another dead end if people do not address the fundamental issues of what kind of economic and political system we live within?

    Human beings at this stage in history live collectively (for the most part) and produce the goods necessary for survival in a collective way, is it not also historically the time for all of us (not just the 1%) to own the means of production collectively? Should we not be moving (in a systematic way) in the direction of removing money from ALL endeavors (not just politics and science) within our society?

    And Duane (and others of his political persuasion) please do not send out endless sources on the internet about the evils of socialism and communism. While I would not share YOUR particular summations of these historical movements, I am acutely aware of the mistakes that were made in the two major social experiments in the Soviet Union and China. But these mistakes combined with their isolation in the world (the fact that they were like Soteria House being surrounded by the mad dogs of Biological Psychiatry) were what led to their defeat.

    Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water and settle for the belief that capitalism is somehow the highest form of human organization. We must re-sum up those past social experiments and make the necessary changes to chart a new course in our future struggles. But merely trying to get “the money out of politics” in today’s economic and political system without critically evaluating the “bad barrel” that surrounds and envelopes EVERYTHING that we try to do or change in this world, is to deny the fundamental capitalist law of value and it’s inherent logic of “expand or die” and seek the highest rate of profit by any means necessary. This law operates independent of any type of human intervention. This would be like asking Dracula to suck water instead of blood; ain’t gonna happen!!

    Will you said : “So as much as I respect the good small single issue work of my colleagues – and I do this work myself — it is a dead end.”

    Having made my points on the larger issues, I do still believe there is GREAT value in fighting single issue struggles such as against psychiatric abuse, racial oppression, and for saving the environment etc. I am all in for building a movement against psychiatric abuse in all it forms. It is by educating and arousing the masses in these individual struggles that powerful movements will emerge where people will be forced to reconsider what kind of overall system makes the most sense for humanity to move forward with for their future world.

    So the question is NOT whether or not to fight these individual struggles (we absolutely must) but more about how we actually conduct these particular struggles. We must always attempt to link these struggles with all the other human rights battles within society. We must always educate people about where “the money ultimately leads to,” and also broaden our analysis to the larger forms of “structural violence,” and this necessarily includes what is inherently wrong with the big “bad barrel” we are all stuck within at this stage in our human history.

    Again, thank you Will Hall for writing such an important blog.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Here is what Wikipedia has to say on this subject:

    A fetus (/ˈfiːtəs/; plural “fetuses”), also spelled foetus or, archaically, faetus,[1] is the term used to refer to a prenatal mammal or other viviparous vertebrate between its embryonic state and its birth. The 2008 Britannica Concise Encyclopedia defines it as the “[u]nborn young of any vertebrate, particularly mammals, after it has acquired its basic form.”[2]

    In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development tends to be taken as beginning at the gestational age of eleven weeks, i.e. nine weeks after fertilization.[3][4] In biological terms, however, prenatal development is a continuum, with no clear defining feature distinguishing an embryo from a fetus. The use of the term “fetus” generally implies that a mammalian embryo has developed to the point of being recognizable as belonging to its own species; this is the point usually taken to be the ninth week after fertilization. A fetus is also characterized by the presence of all the major body organs, though they will not yet be fully developed and functional and some not yet situated in their final anatomical location.

    Report comment

  • Duane

    For some women to be pregnant at the wrong time by the wrong man can lead to a life of living in projects – on some type of welfare – subjected to an endless string of dysfunctional and/or abusive men. We must uphold “choice” as a basic human right. The current erosion of this right in today’s world is a tragedy and a major political setback from those advances made in the 1960’s. Abortion on Demand; Without Apology!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Adam

    I have read and copied (for others to read) many of your blogs exposing the potential dangers of antidepressants for pregnant women and their unborn fetus. I very much appreciate the work you are doing.

    In some of your blogs you have used the word “baby” to describe an unborn fetus. You are a doctor who uses the best that science can offer to critically analyze the current research on this topic. Why do you degrade your analysis by using a politically charged unscientific term that actually appeals to the arguments posed by right wing misogynists to justify opposing a woman’s right to control her own body and her own reproductive rights?

    Rightwing elements use the term “baby” in place of “fetus” to gather sympathy and emotion to oppose a woman’s right to choose an abortion by calling these women and their supporters “baby killers.” We are talking about the absolute essential and necessary human rights for half of humanity when we discuss the topic of abortion. And really, ALL OF HUMANITY, because the freedom of women, in the final analysis, is inseparable from that of men.

    We do not need to stoop to a level of using unscientific terminology and false sympathy to prove our case regarding the harm done by psychiatric drugs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Monica and Steve

    Great comments.

    I would add the important and necessary point: that human beings (as a community) cannot become whole or experience loving relationships if they are not in a social environment that makes these conditions possible.

    Institutionalized poverty and other forms of inequality and oppressive social relationships all create the material conditions for various forms of trauma and human deprivation of spirit. Until there is a revolutionary (systemic) transformation of the status quo the broad masses of people (as a whole) will not be able to access what they need to live truly productive lives.

    While I respect the authors of this blog article and their efforts to educate about the importance of diet, I cannot share ANY of their enthusiasm about presenting at an APA convention. If anything, the APA uses these minority of alternative presentations as an advertising tool to somehow say they are fair and diverse.

    Nor would I be encouraged if a CIA convention had 2% of it presentations on the detrimental effects of torture. This would not change, one iota, the essential nature of this oppressive institution.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Alex

    My response above about “forgiveness” represents more general comments about how this process in various therapy approaches is often over rated and too often pushed on people. This was not directed towards your particular posts. I am NOT denying the authenticity of the work you have done with your father; it does sound reconciling and healing for you.

    I wish I had worked harder to do more work with my own father before he died in 1991. I was just becoming a therapist at that time in my life. As I have pondered more the fact that his own father died when he was 13 years old and then he was sent to a military prep school, this certainly handicapped some of his ability to parent in a good way. If I had the opportunity to do it over again there are many issues I would love to engage with him about and perhaps achieve a greater state of healing and even more forgiveness.

    You say: “Peace is not gained with war and fighting of any kind. I think that’s common sense that many seem to not grasp.”

    I could not disagree with this statement more. This is simply not born out by any analysis of history and does not represent common sense. Our own civil war was an inevitable consequence of certain historical class contradictions that allowed for the existence of slavery and violent means were necessary to end that form of oppression. The violence began with the slavery in the first place. Of course its legacy still exists today in many forms and has not ultimately led to “peace” for people of color.

    As long as classes exist in society there will be an enormous amount of violence perpetrated against those on the bottom. Are you suggesting that the oppressed are not ever supposed to ever defend themselves, even using forms of violence to do so? If a woman being raped uses some form of violence to defend herself to achieve her own survival or some level of “peace” in her life is she somehow wrong or corrupting her human essence?

    There can be no peace without justice, and there can be no justice without struggle. And it is inevitable that the oppressed will be forced to use violence to defend themselves and achieve peace in their lives at this stage in human history. I do believe we can and must achieve a point in human progress where the forms of social organization create the material conditions where violence of all forms will disappear and no longer be necessary.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Daniel

    A very challenging and provocative blog that makes many good points.

    Your point about the downside of being a parent as it relates to the quality of a therapist is very insightful and clearly outside the “box” of conventional thinking.

    I have been a therapist for 22 years and a parent of three girls (2 adopted). The youngest was 15 when I became a therapist. I believe I was slightly above mediocre as a parent. Perhaps my greatest attribute was that I did not over indulge my children. My focused involvement in left wing political activism (trying to change the world) prevented me from falling into the trap of teaching or providing entitlement. Fortunately, my children do not resent me for this, but see this activism as a vital form of education and exposure to different ways of thinking.

    Raising a nuclear family in this society is a powerful cultural expectation, especially for women, and has restraints, limitations and conservative pressures that very often limit our freedom to radically change ourselves and challenge the status quo. While many people would say that parenting is an unselfish way to conduct one’s life while dedicating such an enormous amount of time and energy to raising children, it can also be a very narrow and selfish approach to life that follows powerful cultural expectations and unconsciously driven personal needs.

    I have great respect for those revolutionary activists, especially women, who have resisted these powerful cultural expectations in order to more fully dedicate themselves to their political activism and not be weighted down by intense family type obligations.

    This could also apply to aspects of being a better therapist, which also requires great personal and political responsibility and dedication of time and self sacrifice in order to do decent work with people who are very often at a quite vulnerable stage in their life. While the work of great artists is most often an act of political critique and protest of the world; the same could be said of good therapists. How can a therapist help someone if they are not politically and culturally aware of what is wrong with the world and the environment around them, and also prepared to fight to transform that world? Daniel makes this same point when he asks “Is your therapist a radical person?”

    Yes, some parents can work to rise above these family limitations, but I believe Daniel’s cogent point speaks to some of the inherent conservative and selfish cultural weight that derives from family obligations in today’s world and how it influences our world outlook and behavior.

    I share Daniel’s and Uprising’s views on forgiveness. One’s righteous anger about abuse and trauma must first be as fully understood as possible and then channeled in a way that moves both us and the world forward. We must find a way to avoid allowing anger to control us in narrow and self defeating ways, but try to redirect it in a positive way. To just let it go or “forgive” it away will not really work in the end or lead us toward full transformative change. To change the world is to change ourselves.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    This is one of your best and most important blogs at MIA. You have led the way at MIA in addressing these vitally necessary and controversial topics. Your analysis of the links between the struggles against racial oppression and psychiatric abuse are spot on, and point to a future where it will be important and necessary to link up these struggles for broader revolutionary change throughout society.

    As usual Oldhead has made some insightful and uncompromising political critiques of this situation.

    Sera, your response to Barrab and others who might want to trash this struggle because of some of the destruction of property was good.

    I still quibble and strongly disagree with any use of the term “riots” to describe these rebellious actions. These are rebellions of the oppressed, plain and simple, and must be defended as that.

    In any historical uprising of the oppressed there are always a minority of specific acts that are misdirected toward the wrong targets or are out of character with the overall goals of the struggle. This will inevitably happen no matter how organized and disciplined these activities may be. The anger and outrage of the broad masses cannot always be contained nor will everyone adhere to the same strategy. These kind of mistakes should NOT therefore change how we characterize these historical moments or somehow diminish their significance.

    If someone promotes indiscriminate violence as a strategic goal in a particular struggle, of course they should be criticized and even condemned if they want to advocate this kind of leadership. But in this struggle in Baltimore there is no evidence that this is the case. It is most likely the anger and outrage of few people not thinking in a strategic way about how to build a broader struggle.

    Suppose people in those communities in Baltimore took over a certain section of the city and refused to allow any police to have access. This would have been a form of civil disobedience by definition (breaking the law). Because laws are being violated is this somehow transformed into a “riot” instead of being characterized primarily as a rebellion of the oppressed masses?

    And now suppose in that same area seized (for a short period before the Nat’l guard came in to take it back, or Marshall Law was declared and enforced by the military) the masses targeted a police station (and ONLY a police station) as both a symbol and an instrument of oppression in their community, and then they burned it to the ground – how then would people react to those who want to condemn any or all forms of violence, and at the same time declare all rebellious youth as “rioters” and “thugs?” Are some people here willing to admit how their inner most feelings would have reacted to those particular set of hypothesized events?

    In another different (but related) situation for the oppressed – suppose the inmates in a locked psychiatric ward, where forced drugging was an everyday occurrence, rebelled and seized control of the entire facility – and suppose they had a set of righteous demands calling for the end of multiple forms of psychiatric abuse – and suppose in the course of this struggle some property in the hospital was destroyed by a few people or even some hospital staff member got bruised up by one inmate who lost control of his/her emotions – how then would we characterize this uprising? Would it suddenly become a “riot” due to the inclusion of some forms violence by a minority of the participants?

    I know where I stand on these historical uprisings, both those that have happened in the real world and those that are hypothesized as imaginary possibilities for our future. These struggles bring me great joy and I refuse to stand on the side lines and criticize them because they were not perfect, as if any significant historical form of struggle ever was or ever will be perfect.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    Benzodiazepine prescriptions (along with the drugging of children and Electro-shock) should be added to the list of the top three most vulnerable areas in which to target Biological Psychiatry. In my earlier comment above I neglected to include this.

    Given the high amount of prescriptions (and the numbers of related horror stories) combined with the epidemic of opiate overdose deaths and their frequent connection (over 30%) with benzo use, this makes benzodiazepine prescriptions a prime target for our movement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    This was great post; very thought provoking with some important strategic insights about our movement. I agree with the importance of searching for leverage. I also agree that the drugging of children and Electro-shock are psychiatry’s weak points and should be highlighted targets of our struggle.

    In my previous blog titled “What is Biological Psychiatry, Part 2: Anatomy of Power and Control” I made the following statement:
    ” Today’s Biological Psychiatry has become such an essential part of the economic and political fabric holding together our present day society, including its ability and need to maintain control over the more volatile sections of the population, that its future existence may be totally interdependent on the rise and fall of the entire system itself.”

    The U.S economy needs the pharmaceutical industry. The pharmaceutical industry needs psychiatry. The importance of social control of the more volatile sections of the population such as the poor, racial minorities, women, prisoners, and other outcasts and non-conformists is of great importance to a system with such extreme class disparities that are only widening as we speak.

    For this reason this system most definitely needs psychiatry (with its drugging and labeling) to help perform this vital role of social control. All these institutional alliances of oppression grow out of their mutual interdependence and need for survival.

    Very similar to the struggle against racial oppression, women’s oppression, and the destruction of the environment, it is clear to me that the struggle against psychiatric abuse cannot be ultimately won within a profit based capitalist system.

    Racial and sexual inequalities are endemic to the system itself and intrinsically a part of it’s history of imperialist growth and expansion. The same could be said for the capitalist economy and its leaders need to have no barriers or impediments for its ability to rape the environment while following the innate expand or die economics that are part of the internal laws of capita growth. The CEO’s of the major corporations only care about maximizing profit and cannot see (and don’t choose to look) beyond two to three years in the future.

    Our ability to dramatically grow this movement (against psychiatry and the therapeutic state) may ultimately depend on our ability to develop alliances and common ground with these other movements mentioned above. These other movements actually share similar origins in the nature of their oppression and how their struggle needs to grow. The struggle against Biological Psychiatry and the entire mental health system could potentially become as historically significant as these other movements, as well as, act as a unifying catalyst drawing together many diverse sections of the basic masses with very common life experiences. Focusing narrowly on reforms or a legislative agenda will lead only to political dead ends.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Jay

    I found your article educational, interesting, and thought provoking.

    I have worked in the community mental health system for 22 years. Very few therapists I know actually carry out a specific approach to conducting therapy with clients. They may call it CBT but it has very little meaning in what actually takes place in the current environment. I would say it is an overall “eclectic mess” with very little oversight, and very much overshadowed and dominated by the takeover of the medical model.

    I witnessed the takeover of the diseased based/psychiatric drugging model promoted by Biological Psychiatry in collusion with the pharmaceutical industry. This model totally dominates what takes place within the therapeutic process pushing counselors in the direction of being more focused on “what’s wrong with you” not “what happened to you.” The cocktails of psychiatric drugs that most clients are on creates major barriers, with very few positive examples of people emerging out of this madness.

    As a blogger here at MIA I wrote an article posted two years ago titled “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: The Good, The Bad, The Limitations”; you can access it under writers (Richard D. Lewis) or here http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/05/cognitive-behavioral-therapy-the-good-the-bad-the-limitations/. I am curious as to your feedback on my article. I also use EMDR in my work with trauma survivors and find it helpful for people. What is your opinion of this therapeutic approach?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • B

    When I said “medical setting” I was referring to a regular hospital. I would prefer to leave the word “medical” out of my description of a psychiatric hospital.

    I have zero trust in psychiatry and their so-called hospital forms of “treatment.” So I am in agreement with your assessment.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Elocin

    I am sorry you received such poor treatment at the hands of today’s mental health and addiction services (who have adopted the same destructive paradigm of Biological Psychiatry).

    If you look at some of my blogs here at MIA you will see that I have fought against this type of “treatment ” for over twenty years. I would like to believe that I was offering people something completely different.

    I will listen and learn as others join in this vitally important discussion.

    Elocin, I do respect your opinion and the passion in which you articulate it.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I would add the following point: I would NEVER encourage someone addicted to psychiatric drugs to use the word “addict” to describe themselves or others without FIRST saying or prefacing the term with who CAUSED and is RESPONSIBLE for the addiction. It may be best or more accurate to say something to the effect that “Biological Psychiatry through its negligence caused me to become addicted to these drugs (and you name the particular drugs) and expose how they did it.

    I realize I am only speaking as a non-survivor here, though I do work with people trying to withdraw and become less dependent on all categories of drugs.

    Report comment

  • Ally

    I am sorry to hear about your struggle with benzodiazepine drugs. You have raised some important points here. I hope you will not be offended that I am supporting the approach of calling psychiatric drugs addictive.

    I don’t believe that Biological Psychiatry will treat you or others who are in the same (benzo)withdrawal predicament with either the appropriate type of treatment, or the level of compassion needed, because you choose to use the word “dependency” instead of addiction to describe your experience.

    Modern psychiatry knows all too well how to get people dependent on psychiatric drugs but knows virtually nothing about how to get people off of them. In fact, it is not in their interests as a professional guild to question the efficacy of these drugs or to learn about appropriate withdrawal protocols and much needed supports for those that want and/or need to get off of them. And we know that Big Pharma has deliberately lied about these drugs for years and spent billions marketing them.

    What is most insidious and dangerous about this category of mind altering substance is the fact that there is growing evidence that the iatrogenic damage and related withdrawal patterns appear to be potentially far more destructive and difficult to endure than the more commonly known addictive substances.

    Over the years of my treating addictions as a counselor I have worked with many people who have struggled mightily during recovery, but nothing at the level that people here at MIA and other survivor websites describe in such eloquent, yet heartbreaking detail.

    Benzodiazepines are wonderful drugs when used in a controlled medical setting. Outside of a hospital setting they may be the most dangerous category of addictive drugs in the world. Psychiatrists and other regular doctors who recklessly prescribe them (with no true informed consent) are no better, and in some ways much worse, than your corner drug dealer.

    Ally, I wish you the best. Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Elocin and MissLindsay

    “I’ve never met someone taking an SSRI who said “I’m addicted to my Lexapro”. (Elocin)

    “An addict seeks their drug. Someone who is dependent does not.”(MissLindsay)

    Take away someone’s SSRI, Benzo, or opiate (prescribed pain drug) and then deny them the ability to access it legally and I bet most people will find another way to procure it, even if it requires illegal purchases in the street. This is especially true if that person is acutely aware that they feel so horrible because they lack that drug in their system.

    I have treated many (street naïve) opiate addicts that were led into addiction, including the illegal use of heroin, by the prolonged use of pain “medications” inappropriately prescribed by a doctor. Many of these same doctors were themselves duped by the pharmaceutical industry and their highly promoted Fifth Vital Sign campaign in the mid to late 1990’s.

    Psychiatric drugs are addictive drugs even though they do not fit all the exact characteristics of other commonly known addictive substances, or have the same addictive process relative to how a person develops a dependency/addiction to them.

    Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. People do not generally fail to meet their work, family, or other social responsibilities from regularly smoking cigarettes. Nor does a cigarette smoker develop a state of tolerance where they must have increasing amounts of nicotine to sustain themselves or function in life appropriately. People generally fall into a pattern of daily smoking a certain number of cigarettes. Is anyone here going to deny that nicotine is an addictive substance?

    I believe it helps our cause to continue to promote a “drug centered analysis” (as opposed to calling them medications) related to use of psychiatric drugs in society. Psychiatric drugs can and do become addictive for some people in certain situations, and the results are often horrible just like addictions to other substances.

    MissLinsay, my particular”story” is not necessarily pertinent to this discussion. I am trying to understand and figure out what is going on in our society just as you are. I am also very angry and aroused to be part of a movement fighting against all this SHIT. If it matters, I am 67 years old and have been a political activist since my early 20’s. I have also been a counselor in the community mental health system for over 22 years with a specialty in treating addictions. My feelings regarding the takeover of Biological Psychiatry register rather high on the “hatred” scale.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Elocin

    We have had this discussion before. Dependency and addiction are interchangeable and do not have separate distinct meanings as you so strongly advocate.

    The implication from your argument is that addiction is somehow bad and/or self imposed and dependency is neutral and without personal responsibility. Drug use or abuse in our society has to be viewed from the broadest perspective as it relates to its ultimate causes and the degrees of suffering that often precipitate the use of these substances. The more oppressive the society is, the more people who will seek out various escapes from it.

    People use various mind altering substances for many reasons. Some are influenced by their culture and social environment to test them out, and some may be encouraged to do so by an authority (possibly promoting bogus science) such as a doctor. More often than not these substances are used as some type of coping mechanism to better tolerate one’s reality. They are often quite effective, and even helpful in the short term, but usually they have increasingly negative consequences in the long run, sometimes leading to dependency/addiction.

    Several years ago someone wrote a book called “Addiction is a Choice.” It was a very good critical analysis of the disease concept of addiction with good advice for breaking addictions. I loved the content but hated the title. NO ONE CHOOSES TO BECOME AN ADDICT. They don’t wake up one day and say “I think I’ll go get addicted to crack cocaine.”

    Addiction/dependency is a process that can sometimes occur rather quickly for certain people, and for others it may be a long process that will slowly creep up on them. Most people do not realize they have an addiction until they actually attempt to cut down or stop the use of the substance, and then they discover just how physically AND psychologically dependent they are on using the substance.

    Elocin, I don’t believe you can say that people trying to stop psychiatric drugs are only physiologically addicted to them. The mind and body are connected and there is a psychological component connected to the use of all mind altering substances, no matter what the reason was for the person to start taking them. A person dependent on Benzos is unfortunately a Benzo addict no matter who is responsible for their original use of the substance. In this oppressive society we live in (that is filled with so much trauma and stress) our understanding and compassion for ALL people suffering from addiction should be coming from a similar place within our humanity.

    Elocin, I understand the reasoning and anger behind your argument given your desire to target the oppressive role of Biological Psychiatry in creating the epidemic of psychiatric drug iatrogenic damage. But I don’t think the content of your argument holds up and I believe your criticism of Melissa is misguided.

    Melissa , great writing and powerful narrative; I await the rest of your story.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Chaya

    Very thought provoking and insightful post.

    Your words in the following quote really jumped out at me:
    “Paradoxically, true Self-determination takes all things into account and acts from a place beyond the self.”

    We live in a capitalistic profit based society that teaches us that it is human nature to be selfish and to “Look out for number and stab people in the back in order to get ahead.”

    This is the exact opposite of your prophetic words.

    True self determination requires us to view our freedom in the context of the whole. We are not really free unless everyone has both the right and the ability to be free.

    The measure of a truly free society is to examine the level of freedom for that society’s most vulnerable citizens. The United States falls to the bottom of the scale in this measurement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Timothy

    Thanks so much for responding and rejoining this discussion. I really appreciate your apologies for the glibness and tone of your initial response. I, too , worried that perhaps the passion and stridency of my blog and responses were somehow cutting off further dialogue.

    I very much value your opinions, the courage you have to express them, and the depth in which you attempt to explore these very complex issues we all face when trying to understand and evaluate the theories and practices that dominate the current paradigm of mental health “treatment.”

    Sometimes polarized viewpoints and discussion, when conducted in an appropriate manner, can lead to a higher level of understanding and unity if we can hang in there for the duration. The “unity, struggle, unity (at a higher level)…” dialectical process of learning and making social change operates in the broadest sense when looking (in a macro way) at historical transformation in the world, and also in (a more micro way) in our most intimate personal relationships.

    Hopefully something positive will arise out of our current dissonance; dissonance that actually follows our common belief that there is something very wrong in the world in the way human beings are being treated. This is why MIA exists in the first place and why we bother to commit out time and emotions to these challenging discussions and debates.

    On the issue of “decentering drugs” or other hot button topics of contention related to psychiatric abuse. Perhaps I over reached in some of my assumptions regarding the full intentions of your “call” for a shift of direction in our movement. There was a clear theme in your blog of “loosening polarizations” and “avoiding debates.” The additional issues of ‘force’, disease labeling, and Electro-shock are certainly some of the more polarizing issues facing us today, and we need to be clear about the importance of also “centering” our struggle against them as well, despite the polarizations they will inevitably bring our way.

    On the issues of diagnosis, labeling, and “disability” as you defined it, I agree that biology is involved in all human thought and behavior. I also agree that there is evidence that trauma and other negative life experiences can seemingly effect brain structure and neurochemical processes, such as the influence of cortisol levels in the brain etc. However I do not believe this understanding in anyway validates the use of DSM diagnoses to explain extreme forms of psychological distress.

    The whole Biological Psychiatry paradigm denies the decisive role the environment plays in “triggering” genetic expression in the material world. So in some ways it is more important to talk here about the concept of “neuroplasticity” and how creating a safe environment (through revolutionary transformation of human social and economic structures) can provide the material basis for human nurturing, love, and mutual respect. A place where people no longer relate to each other in some type of “commodity relationship;” that is, as a means to an end for more profit or power over another human being.

    So if we agree that human spirit and biological structure can be damaged in today’s world, hopefully we can also agree that it does NOT arise out of “genetic theories of original sin,” and that it can, and must, and will be (if we do our work properly) repaired by human love and revolutionary intervention. And that material conditions will eventually arise in a world where spiritual and biological damage never (ever!) has to occur again.

    Just as you have made a point that sometimes “context is everything,” I would make a similar point about how we evaluate the work of the activist, Dior Vargas, and the POC Photo Project. We cannot ignore the fact that MAMI has their fingerprints all over this project; this was my first thought when I looked at the website, even though it took some searching on my part to find the connection.

    Suspending for a moment any judgment on this project, imagine if Dior Vargas happened to be a depressed young person in the 1960’s (and into the 1970’s) before the takeover of Biological Psychiatry and the creation of their PR groups such as NAMI. Given the level of her critical thinking skills and her very laudable activities fighting women’s oppression, racism, LGBT discrimination, Occupy etc. I can imagine her (in that era) coming to a very much different understanding of her psychological distress. She most likely would have been attracted to Radical Therapy, The Mental Patients Liberation Front, Mind Freedom, and other critical systemic approaches to understanding her oppression as a Latin women and the related psychological distress coming from that experience.

    Unfortunately the theories and practice of Biological Psychiatry (and their PR group, NAMI)) thoroughly dominate the current landscape (with billions spent on advertising), and they have the ability to capture the hearts and minds of thousands of vulnerable individuals and their families. We have much work to do in countering the pervasiveness of their propaganda. One of the major strengths of Whitaker’s Anatomy of an Epidemic was his critical historical expose’ of how the guild of psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry colluded at the highest level in order to engineer their takeover of the mental health system for profit and power interests. We now see the disastrous results of this institutional oppression.

    How people define themselves today and how they use highly charged (system created) labels to do this, should not be abstracted from the socio-political environment that actually gave rise to these (DSM) constructs, nor should it somehow be off limits to critical judgment. This is all a much bigger question than offending someone’s particular individual identity; just as we need to have rigorous debate and discussion about the use of “bitch” word or the “N” word, whether or not it is a women or minority that chooses to use those terms for whatever reason.

    And lastly, I do respect and understand the critical leadership role of psychiatric survivors in this movement, and I also understand why you might have reacted defensively to my blog. Much of my passion on these issues comes from my long history of struggle against ALL oppression, and, in particular, with my intimate contacts with psychiatric survivors over the past few years, including those that write at MIA. I am not getting any younger, and as one gets closer to facing their mortality their frustration with a slow changing world and their desire and passion to make a difference can grow exponentially.

    I hope that Part 2 of my blog will address (in a fair way) issues related to “structural violence” and some of the contention related to aspects of Whitaker’s analysis in Anatomy od an Epidemic. I am all for a spirited and high level dialogue, which I believe is now happening as we communicate through the written word.

    Thanks again for responding and fighting for your beliefs.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Cataract

    I stand corrected; the Third Wave Foundation is apparently not connected to NAMI, but separated by a comma in Dior Vargas’ Linked In resume.

    Her connection to NAMI cannot be disputed. It is listed first in her Linked In resume, and other websites clearly list her as a member of the NAMI-NYC Metro Young Professionals Advisory Board.

    Does this direct connection to NAMI concern you at all?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Cataract

    This individual in question is not just an independent person creating her own activist website.

    Dior Vargas is part of NAMI’s Third Wave Foundation. She is also identified as a member of the Young Professionals Advisory Board NAMI-NYC Metro.

    One of these could even be a paid position. So there definitely is a connection to a system supported advocacy group that we know is funded by the pharmaceutical corporations.

    This was not immediately apparent by viewing multiple websites connected to her project, that is until I Googled her name Dior Vargas and NAMI.

    That being said, based on her bio she has done some very good work fighting against women’s oppression and racial discrimination, including some activity with the Occupy Movement, all of which I completely support. It is unfortunate that she has been influenced by NAMI’s agenda.

    She would be a perfect candidate to read Whitaker’s Anatomy of an Epidemic and the MIA blog; hopefully some one will reach out to her to expose her a different perspective on the mental health system.

    Cataract, I do not mean to offend you in any way or imply that you do not belong at MIA. I have read and agreed with many of your comments in the past. I hope we can grow in mutual understanding as this movement develops.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Cataract

    In no way was I “ridiculing” anyone.

    My criticism was clearly directed towards the advocacy group promoting this when I said the word “having” before I referred to “minority youth holding up signs…”

    “Sadness” is truly a feeling I have when viewing this form of advocacy. I cannot deny my feelings.

    You apparently still support using the word “mental illness” without quotation marks and the disease labels such as “Bi-polar” and “Borderline Personality Disorder.” You must know that this language is a major issue of contention at MIA and among those critical of Biological Psychiatry’s disease model.

    It is more than fair to criticize this within the dialogue and debates at this website.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Cataract

    Did you take the time to carefully examine the website that is being referenced here?

    My criticism was not directed towards the young people holding the signs. My critique was aimed at those advocacy groups and individuals that would promote and encourage this approach (disease labeling) as a way of dealing with extreme forms of psychological distress.

    Timothy Kelly referred to this as a “bright spot” in the struggle of people with “lived experience.” Is it not fair game and important to critically examine whether or not this actually represents progress in our movement, or keeps us stuck in the current paradigm of so-called “treatment?”

    Doesn’t the promotion and acceptance of psychiatric disease labeling lead minority people away from understanding that their oppression emanates from “structural violence” within our economic and political system?

    What do you suggest as an appropriate way to critically evaluate the content and effect of this form of advocacy?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ted

    Thanks for that comment; it means a lot coming from you given your history in this movement.

    You had some of the strongest reactions and criticisms of Timothy Kelly’s blog when it was first posted; your first instincts were spot on.

    I was thinking of some of your past comments when I spoke (in my blog) to the need for seminal events of struggle in our movement. You always said that we missed the boat when Rebecca Riley (the little child from outside Boston, Ma.) who was killed by theory and practice of Biological Psychiatry and for whom we failed to respond in a decisive way. We cannot, and should not, miss these opportunities in the future.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Timothy

    1) I did not create a “straw man argument.” I read over your blog multiple times to get the essence of your themes and central arguments; some were clearly spelled out others were hinted at and implied. I never said you had no opposition to issues of diagnosis and force. You made it clear that all hot button issues should be “decentered” and “debates” about them avoided, and that would necessarily include the use of diagnosis, force, and Electro-shock. If this were to happen it would literally gut the heart out of our much needed opposition to Biological Psychiatry.

    Your opposition to DSM diagnoses is not clear in your blog. You stated “I don’t think it’s helpful (or accurate) to center debate on the supposed nonexistence of more enduring psychosocial disabilities.” This tells me you accept part of Biological Psychiatry’s disease labeling.

    2)What sealed the deal on your defense of psychiatric labeling is your support and promotion (in the source you provided in your blog) of minority youth proudly holding up signs identifying their supposed “mental illnesses” and the labels that go with them, such as “I am Bi-polar” and “I am Borderline Personality Disorder;” the scarlet letter of all diagnoses. Then you tell me it is “offensive” for me to criticize the advocacy group that promotes this. What is more “offensive” here, your support of this backward form of advocacy and the group that created it OR you calling me “offensive” for daring to challenge this. Do I have to be a minority or have “lived experience,” or both, to have the “right” to criticize the defense of oppressive disease labeling.

    3) Timothy, when I make reference to “science” in my blog I am not just referring to what I believe. I am making reference to all the authors (many who are here at MIA that have many credentials after their names) who make use of the scientific method to deconstruct the pseudoscience that forms the shaky foundation of Biological Psychiatry. There are authors of countless number of books and journal articles that have culled the scientific journals to arrive at a “scientific” critique of psychiatry’s bogus theory and practice. MIA constantly posts scientific journal articles on the left side of the blog website that I incorporate in my analysis.

    4) Are you implying that I should be silent or that I have “no “right to speak” on these issues because I am not a survivor with “lived experience.?” Timothy, please tell me what human experiences or forms of trauma must I live through in order to qualify to speak out about oppression?

    I would never pretend for a moment that I have the direct experience of all the horrors that many survivors have endured at the hands of Biological Psychiatry. I have, however, indirectly shared some of those experiences with those who have.

    Over 22 years of working in community mental health as a counselor. I have heard hundreds of personal stories about the worst forms of psychological, physical, and sexual abuse that one can imagine. And I have watch as Biological Psychiatry has labeled these extreme forms of psychological distress as various forms of brain diseases, and then added to people’s trauma with the worst kinds of poly pharmacy. Some of my clients have died (in my opinion) as a result of this so-called “treatment.” What do you think it does to a person who must bear witness to all these various forms of trauma, including by those who claim to be helping people.

    Timothy, I do not possess a “sincerometer” to test your degree of compassion for people, your hatred of oppression, or your commitment and willingness to take risks to end oppression. Nor do you have such an instrument to test that of me. I am 67 years old and have been a political activist since my early 20’s; sometimes putting my life at risk for causes I felt strongly about. Nobody will silence me by playing the “identity politics card.”
    You can read all my blogs (as well as my comments) here at MIA to find out where I stand on the issues. I have studied psychiatric drugs for over 20 years and been a critic of Biological Psychiatry during that same period of time. I read MIA and carefully studied and learned from the stories of psychiatric survivors for months before I dared to post at MIA.

    I stand by my words AND actions opposing the theories and practice of Biological Psychiatry. I will let the psychiatric survivors and other activists at MIA decide whether I deserve to stand with them at the barricades in the struggle to end all forms of psychiatric abuse.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • James

    Thanks for responding to my difficult challenges to your blog and comments. Not all authors respond as you have, especially when the going gets rough.

    First off you took offense to my saying that your writing has an agenda. I believe all of us who write here have an agenda; some may be more obvious and more clearly spelled it out; others may be more subtle, hidden, or simply implied.

    All of us here when pushed to explain our ideas about what is wrong with the world and which direction we would like to see it go, will articulate some sort of agenda. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this process. This is how ideas and world views can be better dissected and we can all hopefully arrive at a closer approximation of the truth and determine the best direction humanity needs to travel in.

    The title of your blog “Addressing the Mental Health Crisis: What Really Matters” could not be more plain and obvious that you intended to put out your beliefs about WHAT REALLY MATTERS! Is this not an agenda either consciously or unconsciously implied. Within your ideas presented were clearly implied directions for where you believe people need seek answers and what that content might be. The issues you presented were of a very clear moral and political character. Ultimately the topics of women’s rights and equality, the marriage contract, and gay marriage, involve issues of morality AND law.

    Now I will quote one of your authored articles cited in your response to Truth in Psychiatry. You said the following:

    “Some say that the church is no longer relevant in the 21st century. But given the serious harm people are causing to themselves and others BY IGNORING OR DENYING CATHOLIC TEACHING (emphasis added) it seems that these truths are needed now, possibly more than ever.”

    This represents a clear agenda on your part. Why are “these truths needed now, possibly more than ever.” I believe it is because you think these “truths” will make the world a better place. There is absolutely nothing wrong with have these strong beliefs and propagating them to others. Just be prepared to defend them and not pretend that you have no agenda or direction where you believe humanity needs to go.

    You also stated the following in that the above cited article:

    “The Church teaches that homosexual acts are NOT HEALTHY (emphasis added) expressions of human sexuality.”

    Then you went on to explain some facts about the transmission of HIV through anal intercourse. So what should I assume from the phrase “not healthy”? If they are not healthy then therefore are they “sick” or “diseased.” I do not want to put words in your mouth but you must know that these ideas being propagated cause great harm to gay people and to those that become firmly entrenched into homophobia.

    Your answer above to me about discrimination towards women and gay people states that you support the “right” of women to have access to birth control and divorce and the “right” of gay people to live freely in society, but what you did not say is that you believe that these behaviors (use of contraception, divorce, gay sex etc.) are in fact “sins” according to Church doctrine that you not only uphold but vehemently defend. So much so that you write about the difficult dilemmas confronting Catholics in today’s world so as to convince them to NOT abandon the faith; yes, I am pointing out just another agenda.

    James, to tell women who have abortions or use contraception or to tell gay men that are engaged in “unhealthy” and “sinful” behaviors; all this causes great harm to people. It was Ashley Montague who coined the phrase “genetic theories of original sin” in criticizing the biological determinists of his time. It is a short walk to the Biological Psychiatry of today that tells people they are born with genetic brain diseases that causes their different or unbearable thoughts and behaviors.

    We are not born “sinners” we don’t need these kinds of harmful moral burdens. There is no such thing as “eternal sins.” Human being make mistakes not sins.

    This burden of “sin” and “damnation” is intimately connected to the type of self hatred that is so much apart of the symptoms and behaviors that get labeled as “mental illness.” Religion’s role in this phenomena in the world must be critically analyzed.

    James, I had a few more things to say but I am at a library computer and must end this session.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Truth in Psychiatry and James

    First off I want to thank Truth in Psychiatry for raising the important challenges to James regarding the major forms of discriminations against women and gay people that reside within Catholic doctrine and practice.

    James, while it is true that these are important conversations to have in a civil manner here at MIA it does not eliminate the fact that the doctrines that you have defended here literally affect millions of people in this world. And there are powerful arguments (and I believe facts to them back up) that these doctrines and practices harm millions of people.

    I have read almost all of your blogs and have respected and learned from those viewpoints on several subjects. This blog on “Addressing the Mental Health Crisis: What Really Matters” I believes misses the mark and promote a somewhat covert and wrong political agenda.

    Your blog misses the most essential factor that matters in all of these issues confronting us in the movement against psychiatric abuse – POVERTY and the profit system that creates and sustains these forms of inequalities. It is that system and the traumas it produces on a daily basis that creates the level of stress and psychological harm to push people over the critical edge of human tolerance. To not address this issue lets the system off the hook and directs people towards secondary issues.

    As to the secondary issues, your position on sleep and physical health are clearly very important. However, your statistics about faith and the family are promoting a clear agenda that what the world needs now is more religion and traditional family values. Should we be waiting for the hereafter, as the slaves were preached to, to seek true liberation and freedom.

    You cannot escape the fact that the traditional family and the institution of marriage has not been very kind (an understatement) to half of the human race over many centuries. To promote an implied agenda that cohabitation and divorce is bad simply ignores how these particular values oppress millions of women who are often culturally forced to stay in very unequal and outright abusive marriages. The freedom to divorce (without legal, economic, psychological, religious or cultural restraints) allows people the freedom to actually love at a higher level if they choose to continue. Women who remain in abusive marriages are oppressed and the children who both witness this abuse and most often are themselves the victims of patriarchy abuse will suffer in the long term. What does living within these abusive marriages teach children about love and how people should treat other human beings, especially women.

    On the issue of contraception, it is also easy for you given your education and economic status to promote the agenda opposed to contraception, and promote the joys of having 6 children. Your children are blessed to have such devoted, economically stable, and competent parents. BUT to deny half of humanity the right to have complete control over contraception, reproduction, and their bodies, is to end up supporting laws and policies that harm millions of women. One pregnancy at the wrong time and place in a woman’s life could end up subjecting that woman to years, or even a life time of economic and psychological degradation.

    In under developed countries the position of powerful churches and religions (negatively influencing government leaders) has denied funding for birth control where there ware very high levels of HIV/AIDS. It is a fact that this exposed millions of women and men to a life threatening disease. How many people have died as a result of this?

    One cannot pretend to be in favor of equality for women, or support feminism, and deny half of humanity the right to control their reproductive rights.

    Their is moral inconsistency in the moral high ground you claim to stake out at MIA. When it comes to the issues confronting women and gay people in this world you have resorted to the highest level of verbal and psychological gymnastics to defend those positions. These are not just intellectual debates, your position on these issues (and how your words might potentially influence people) affect the daily lives millions in the world.

    Gay people suffer enormous harm from those institutions that seek to deny them the right to experience sexual love and marriage with those of the same sex. Their is simply no way that you can defend this discrimination without resorting to quotations from the Bible. Does that mean you will defend a literal interpretation of scripture which also says that defiant children should be killed and adulterous women should be stoned.

    As you know there are many churches and religions that now (in the past they did not) fully accept gay people, divorce, contraception. and the full equality of women in society.

    I am currently away but I could not rest without responding on these crucial questions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Madmom

    I just want to say, once again, that you are a powerful voice in our movement.

    Your story and the way you articulate it so clearly and passionately is very valuable to all of us who seek an end to psychiatric oppression and all other violations of human rights on this planet.

    I am amazed that you have been able to maintain your moral and political compass and overall sanity given the terrible treatment of your precious child by the mental health system; she is so lucky to have you as an advocate.

    Keep writing and keep fighting; I would be proud to stand next to you at the barricades.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jeremy

    I have worked almost 22 years as a therapist in the community mental health system and I blog here at MIA.

    Your transformation was very informative; it will be interesting to see where your new found understanding brings you, especially if you continue to work in that hospital. I hope you write more about how one maintains a strong moral stance and practice while working inside an overall oppressive system.

    I once thought about writing a blog entitled “How to work inside the community mental health system without going crazy or getting fired, or both”. We are on a very precarious path, as you already know, or will soon find out. Welcome.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Noel

    This was a great blog; it has deepened my understanding of the relationship of trauma and psychosis.

    In my first blog written at MIA (Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease Model) I made the following statement:
    “…extreme states of psychological distress can lead to altered states of consciousness that are mislabeled as a “mental illness” and a “disease,” but could instead be better looked at as a creative and necessary coping mechanism dealing with an experienced and/or perceived hostile and threatening environment. This coping mechanism, as with addiction, may also prevent more extreme reactive behaviors or provide an escape or temporary relief from intense physical or emotional pain.”

    Your blog has given deeper meaning to the actual content of these types of coping mechanisms.

    You said:
    “I would venture to state that for many, “delusion” can save from a far worse fate: death of the soul; suicide; annihilation. I know for myself, one of the worst phenomena I’ve experienced is overwhelming internal panic and a chronic need to escape. When I have believed that I must escape a friendship because the person wishes to harm me, or quit a job because all the employees are plotting against me, or I am being haunted within my own home by beings from the netherworld, or I’m being watched by unseen boogiemen, I have found relief; there was something to escape from.”

    This is a brilliant description of one’s possible thought process and related coping mechanism when faced with unexplained (at the time) feelings of internal fear and terror.

    As to your references to when people believe they are God (or Jesus) you alluded to another powerful point; you said:

    “When such a person comes to the conclusion, for instance, that they are God, perhaps this is serving to explain … a sense of purpose or meaning as to why he suffers so.”

    A similar explanation came to me when I was recently counseling someone who had endured horrific childhood sexual abuse. Her memories came back to her in dream like sequences with heavy religious overtones. Her identification with Jesus was one of the only ways she could explain how a human being such as her could possibly be forced to endured so much human suffering – similar to Jesus on the cross.

    Great stuff – a thorough going refutation of the theory and practice of Biological Psychiatry!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Robert

    I like many of your ideas and your spirit of rebellion.

    However, I would respectfully suggest that you completely abandon your mission to salvage psychiatry. I believe a much nobler mission would be to actually help push psychiatry into the dust bin of history.

    You don’t need to save it in order to do your therapeutic work to help people. Today psychiatry clearly stands as an obstacle to the work of ALL caregivers, and especially to all those people dealing with extreme psychological distress who are forced to come in contact with it.

    You said : “When our current prevailing fad passes — and it will — what are we going to be left with?”

    I say : Biological Psychiatry is more than just a fad. It is a highly organized institutional system of oppression that is very valuable to the ruling classes at this stage in history to maintain power and control of the masses. We can and must do without it.

    You said : “My fear is that it is already too late. The hope for the future depends on young professionals who think for themselves; people who are drawn to quest for the real item. But who is going to teach them? Will we have to start all over again?”

    I say : Yes it is too late, and you should be CELEBRATING that fact while hasting the demise of psychiatry from the inside, and conducting this struggle in tandem with those survivors and activists organizing on the outside.

    As for the young professionals, I say this may be one situation where we CANNOT rely on the YOUNG psychiatrists to lead the rebellion from within. Young psychiatrist have all been trained (brain washed) in the highly controlled and organized propaganda schools of Biological Psychiatry.

    Fifty percent of all psychiatrists in this country are over the age of 55; trained as psychiatrists before the brain/disease drug/based medical model was consolidated in the profession. Many were also positively influenced by the movement of the 1960’s. They are the most alienated section in the profession working today and are more open to the ideas of critical psychiatry.

    You said : “I hope that those of us who remain true, will rise up and put a stop to the present travesty.”

    I say: Dissident psychiatrists have plenty of important work to do in the next several decades.

    1) Create havoc within the psychiatric profession by targeting the leadership, practice, and ideology of Biological Psychiatry at their every meeting and professional gathering.

    2) Promote the stories of psychiatric survivors and unite with all activists working inside and outside the mental health system to help create the future material conditions for its complete dismantlement.

    3) Learn the science and practice of safe withdrawal from psychiatric drugs and organize a cadre of like-minded psychiatrists to join forces (as equals) with survivors and other citizen scientists helping the millions of victims of the psychiatric drug epidemic.

    4) Help build this human rights struggle as part of a much larger movement to dismantle the profit based economic and political system that sustains and benefits from the crimes of Biological Psychiatry, and stands as an historical impediment to the progress of human civilization.

    Given that the future of humanity may be at stake, our careers and professional status matters very little in the grand scheme of things.

    Richard

    .

    Report comment

  • Subvet416

    Thanks for the source material.

    It is interesting that some people have questioned what the possible motive would be for a doctor to become a Dr. Feelgood or a Candyman. I believe most of these doctors actually believe they are helping people with their suffering by drugging them. Of course this approach is loaded with arrogance, disdain, control issues, and martyr complexes.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    To thoroughly evaluate the important themes you are addressing in this blog it is essential that we examine the environment (context, system, zeitgeist etc.) that medicine and psychiatry is practiced within in today’s world.

    I hope you had a chance to read my most recent blog “Dr. Feelgood: Travelling on the “Path of Least Resistance’.” It is extremely difficult to avoid getting caught on this ‘path.’ There are very powerful cultural forces within a profit based – capitalist system that tends to turn everything into a commodity or so-called business relationship. This has had an overwhelming and corrupting impact on both science and medicine on so many different dimensions related to how people interact in the patient/doctor relationship.

    I would argue that we will not be able to get beyond these inherent problems of commodity type relationships unless we address these major systemic issues.

    My own PCP vents with me during each of my visits about “the war on doctors” and how hospitals and hospital groups are controlling his every action, and twisting and distorting his relationships with his patients to meet the narrow economic agenda of those medical entities within a much larger profit based system.

    Certainly the question of how the elderly are treated in our current society is directly related to these much larger systemic issues. Psychiatry is no different except that its’ position in the hierarchy has the added feature of being able to determine what is “normal” or “dangerous” in society and the ultimate power of forced drugging and psychiatric incarceration.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • chrisreed

    Having read many of your comments I have great faith in your ability to connect with people on many different levels and to avoid getting caught on “the path of least resistance.”

    As to your battle with psych drugs, you already have accomplished so much in your reduction. Have you and others checked out the website called “Point of Return.” I know someone who is getting help from them and they seem (on my first reading) to be based on good science and methods of support.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • Bruce

    This was one of most important posts at MIA in a long time.

    You have added significant substance and depth to some of the same themes I have echoed here at MIA.

    I would only quibble with your use of one word. You said:

    “Substantive mental health reform will not come about unless society itself is REFORMED (emphasis added) to be less fearful and less in need of controls and coercions.”

    I don’t believe either system (the mental health system contained within the larger capitalist system) can be “reformed.” They both will have to be dismantled and replaced.

    Bruce, I love your writing and the depth of your political and social critique; keep writing – we need you.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    Thanks for your comment and your on going exposure (from inside and within the trenches) detailing the deceit and corruption of today’s mental health system.

    It is rare that our justice system ever actually indicts one of their “own.” When is the last time a cop has ever been indicted for killing an unarmed Black youth, or even a white “mentally ill person? When was anyone on Wall Street ever indicted for their high crimes in the banking industry?

    Yes, I do think it is worth pushing for indictments of the CEO’s of Big Pharma, and exposing and indicting those doctors who we would label as involved in criminal activity within psychiatry, BUT I don’t hold out much faith that this is the ultimate strategy that will eventually bring down the Beast.

    The Supreme Court, for example, has always historically adjusted its interpretation of the Constitution to the current political zeitgeist. In the final analysis it will never challenge those in powers’ right to make a profit (exploit) the masses and maintain the social control and the “order” necessary to preserve the essence of the present day status quo.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    I am indeed flattered by your comment.

    I am also quite intrigued by how this issue of psychiatric abuse brings together conservatives and more radical people on the left on the same side of a certain set of barricades. It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out in the future development of this movement.

    Thanks again for the feedback; one never knows for sure how their blog writing will be received when it finally appears in print before such a critical thinking audience.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Someone Else

    Thanks for your comments.

    “[A]s long as this distribution of drugs is so highly profitable to a small segment of the rich and powerful, and as long as it continues to anesthetize … a new generation of [victims of] grave diggers, [via] their corrupt and historically outdated [“mental illness”] system, no major reform would be allowed to disrupt this flow of wealth and this extremely valuable form of social control.” If I understood this statement correctly, it is quite insightful, and I agree this is a huge part of the problem.

    My reference to potential “grave diggers” is mainly referring to young political activists and other dissidents (that avoid or get off of the drugs) who will some day take the lead in building a movement that ends up “burying” this oppressive system in history’s graveyard; along with other onerous empires and systems that have preceded it.

    My references to “system” goes beyond just today’s mental health system and its relationship with Big Pharma. I’m also referencing the much larger (profit based) economic and political system that gave rise to today’s psychiatric abuse, and now perpetuates, and clearly benefits from it.

    Thanks for the artistic references to other songs that have addressed these related issues of suffering, drugs, and social control. We need more examples and discussion of the role of art in our movement here at MIA.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    As usual, you always seem to add valuable depth to the themes articulated in posted blogs.

    Yes, many so-called caregivers do not understand suffering and therefore cannot tolerate sitting with it or helping people work through it; no matter how long it might take.

    More often their immediate (self imposed) goal is to make it disappear as soon as possible. Hence their ultimately self serving “treatment” plan boils down to “Bring on the Drugs!”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    There are no genuine socialist countries in the world today.

    Poverty in Third World countries is directly related to the First World countries that control and exploit their cheap labor and natural resources.

    Capitalism is a pyramid like structured society with a very narrow peak at the top that represents the tiny minority (often referred to as the one percent) who have all the power and most of the wealth.

    If every single adult in this country (including every single minority and poor white person) had a college education along with specific technical training, it would not change (one iota) the actual class structure of our society. Unemployment and specific wage scales are built into the very fabric of capitalism.

    This is not “crony” capitalism or “unreformed” capitalism; this is capitalism working just the way it is designed to work.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    For clarification, I do not put all the blame for opiate overdoses at the doorstep of Biological Psychiatry. Certainly the issue of the proliferation of benzo prescriptions is very much related to psychiatry’ prescribing patterns; a high percentage of these drugs do end up in the black market on the street.

    Also important to this problem is to critically examine the “Fifth Vital Sign” campaign that took place in the mid to late 1990’s. This involved pressuring all doctors to question patients about pain levels as if it was as important as blood pressure etc., and then coerce them to freely prescribe pain drugs. This was a combined effort of the pharmaceutical industry and certain leaders among pain specialists. This campaign laid the groundwork for the proliferation of pain clinics in this country and was the precursor to the current epidemic of opiate addiction.

    From a more macro perspective, I see the material conditions from which major addiction problems arise is directly related to the daily traumas inherent in a capitalist/profit based system that generates and sustains poverty for the underclasses; opiates provide an easily procured form of temporary escape.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    Thanks for the clarification.

    How about the issue of what you are seeing in community mental health for those people on long term use of multiple SSRI’s? Over the years are you seeing chronic levels of dysfunction in those patients?

    I know we do not usually see people who are doing well in these clinics (so the sample numbers are skewed) but do you believe Biological Psychiatry could actually prove that there is a subset of people who truly get better from depression over the long term while on these drugs?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jill

    You said in the comment below: ” I don’t think the society will be harmed if we have large numbers addicted to opiates.”

    I’m having trouble believing you made this comment without a hint of sarcasm or humor; it just oozes with indifference and elitism.

    I’ve had some hard core opiate addicts make a similar argument to me about legalization during a counseling session.

    For the rich and powerful, they would not care one bit about this segment of the population (just like they don’t care about the poor) if they weren’t committing crimes to support their habit. As tolerance to the drug inevitably grows, so does the amount of money needed on a daily basis to support an addict’s habit.

    Tell all that to the families of opiate addicts who suffer while watching the steady decline of their loved ones, while also having to contend with habitual lying and stealing necessary to support an expensive habit.

    Tell that to the growing number of families who have had to bury their loved ones in this country’s rapidly rising epidemic of overdose deaths.

    Many opiate addicts know how to safely use their (single category) drug of choice, it’s all the other sedative hypnotics (such as benzodiazepines) that they have forgotten are also circulating in their blood stream when they shoot up. We cannot repeat too often the statistic that in over 30% of all deaths from opiate overdoses the deceased person also had benzos in their system; in 2013 there were 94 million benzo prescriptions written in the U.S. Just another crime (among so many) laying at the doorstep of Biological Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    You make several references to ADHD without using quotation marks or questioning the legitimacy of the diagnosis. I believe there is a great deal of evidence that this has been another manufactured diagnosis created by Big Pharma colluding with the APA for self serving and other nefarious purposes.

    I know you are trying to approach these questions from a critical perspective. Where do you stand on this question; are you ready to let go of the ADHD diagnosis?

    My experience from critical sources starting with Dr. Peter Breggin many years ago and numerous others in the years since, combined with my own work as a counselor in community mental health tells me the following:

    1) that some of the “ADHD” behaviors that lead to labeling By biological Psychiatry certainly do exist, but more fundamentally arise out of a prolonged state of excessive or heightened anxiety.
    2) that there are multiple factors in one’s environment that better explain the behaviors (or so-called symptoms) such as a trauma history (either witnessed or directly experienced), oppressive and/or inconsistent confusing, or constantly changing boundaries (for children) maintained by dysfunctional parents, and/or allergic reactions to certain substances or toxins in the environment.

    Many drugs (both legal and illegal) have different reactions for different people who have had the above noted experiences. Over the years I have talked with people who are calmed by cocaine and energized by heroin, and some with exactly the opposite reactions. All categories of legal and illegal substances have BOTH short term and long term consequences and the SHORT TERM consequences are NOT always falling on the positive side of the scale.

    When you make reference to antidepressants you tend to emphasize or only mention potential dangers of long term consequences (and we are learning more everyday about the long term dangers of perturbing the serotonergic system).

    For the short term, what about suicidality, akathisia (extreme anxiety and discomfort), and emotional numbing or a state of “selfish indifference.” The latter description is one that I have noticed in working (for 21 years) with many people on these drugs. I have also seen many people who have been on multiple SSRI’s and never “get better” and seem to get worse or go from one crisis period to another with only short periods of relative stability in between. Sandra, have you not observed the same phenomena among your patients?

    We all know (here at MIA) about the past hype of Prozac and other SSRI’s (Prozac Nation etc.). We also know about the significance scientific evidence of the Placebo Effect which clearly explains the explanation of short term positive effects reported by people. A good question to investigate regarding SSRI’s: are there really any significant numbers of people out there who actually claim that SSRI’s work great over a period of many years? Can Biological Psychiatry really prove that there is even a small subset of people who actually benefit from these drugs over the long term? I question if they can do this.

    As to more short term negative effects, emotional numbing or “selfish indifference” might have an initial subjective experience that could be described by an individual as “positive.” But even in the short term this effect could be seriously undermining their ability to understand or solve the very problems in their life that are giving rise to the experience of depression.

    These drugs can lead people away from seeking out the means and resources to solve their problems, but instead lead them into a state of passive acceptance of the status quo that actually prolongs their experience of depression. This state of passive acceptance can often prevent the development of necessary coping mechanisms and new insights that are essentially to making progress in their life.

    So Sandra, my point is that short term effects can also be proven to be quite harmful (in different ways) even prior to the growing evidence of iatrogenic damage done by neurochemical dis-regulation in the long term. I hope you will speak to this as well.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • My first take on Part 1 of Dr. Datta’s blog on the medical model is that – so far it divides very sharply into two distinct viewpoints.

    On the one hand it is a great exposure of everything that is wrong with conducting science, medicine, and all forms of caregiving under a profit (capitalist) system. The following quote:
    “The profit motive has corrupted medicine and transformed it into a multi-billion dollar business – psychiatry is not the exception but the rule.” ; this cannot be repeated too often; this has been a constant theme in almost all my written blogs here at MIA.

    Datta provides numerous examples of how the profit motive corrupts the medical model bringing up forms of corruption and distortion of medicine that I have never even thought of. Every time I see my own PCP he complains about what he describes as “the war on doctors.” In my area there is an all out war between competing “nonprofit” hospitals and medical groups that would rival the most cut throat competition of any warring capitalists. All this puts various forms of coercion and control on the role of formerly independent doctors who are now forced under the strict control of various hospital groups and their narrow economic agendas.

    Competing medical nonprofits in a capitalist system are very much subjected to the same “expand or die” economic laws and practices that guide “for profit” corporations. In the end medical care for the masses is thoroughly degraded for those lucky enough to even have access to it. And this will only get worse.

    Now on the other hand I believe Datta’s Part 1 analysis devolves into a form of moral and political relativism when he makes the following statement:

    “Many critics of psychiatry engage in “splitting.” They see psychiatry as an “all bad” object, mired by pseudoscience, pathologizing all of mental life, peddling quack treatments, often under coercion or control. So-called “real medicine” is idealized as the product of scientific advancement, with diagnoses and treatment precise, its diseases and treatments not influenced by sociopolitical, or economic fancy, and its practitioners portrayed as healers rather than agents of social control.”

    The problems within the medical model under a profit system are not all “relative” or “equal” where everything is more or less the same and we cannot determine some definitive or more absolute truths about the present state of affairs of modern psychiatry in comparison to the rest of medicine.

    There is very much a QUALITATIVE difference in comparing the problems inherent in Biological Psychiatry as compared to the entire practice of medicine with all it present day distortions. The entire foundation and edifice upon which psychiatry is built is based on faulty and “spurious” (as Hickey would say) notions of science.To not recognize this qualitative difference is a form of “relativism.”

    When “relativism” is applied to analyzing psychiatry within today’s medical model it leaves the reader to believe that those who single out or focus criticism on psychiatry are resorting to various forms of “subjectivism” in their approach. This is definitely not the case. The essence of most of the critical appraisals (at MIA and other forums) of modern psychiatry have represented a correct application of the scientific method and an advanced form of political analysis.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    You said: “I am inferring your acceptance of the unique role psychiatry, MD has played in the heinous destruction of humanity, based on what you have *not said*…”

    Katie, it is impossible to have principled dialogue or struggle with someone who speculates on inferences and bases the essence of their criticisms on things “not said” by someone. I am not sure what your motivation or purpose would be to conduct discussion in this manner with me.

    As to your references regarding the “enemy,” you said:

    “Yet, you avoid direct confrontation with *the enemy*

    Rather than inferring your meaning, I will ask you if you’re implying that Dr. Datta is your enemy merely because he is a psychiatrist or because you have disagreements with him?

    You also said: “How is it that you missed this prime example of psychiatry [ruling class?] …Psychiatry, comprised of individuals with both influence and power, executed, as only they could, the plan to oppress, enslave, and destroy those who oppose or trouble the *ruling class*. ”

    Katie, are you inferring by this statement that all psychiatrists are part of the” ruling class” and are oppressors by virtue of their membership in this profession? If you are, this is both wrong and counter productive to a movement that needs to “unite all who can be united” ( including radical and dissident psychiatrists) to end psychiatric abuse and all forms of human oppression.

    When I refer to the “enemy” I am making a class analysis. All psychiatrists are NOT part of the 1%, nor should they be labeled as a group as the “enemy,” as if they were all part of the ruling class. Yes, psychiatry needs to leave history’s stage along with the entire mental health system, but I believe there are some psychiatrists who can be united with over the long haul to help make this happen. Putting them all in the camp of the “enemy” represents the opposite of a winning strategy.

    We should be targeting the KOL’s (key opinion leaders) within psychiatry (including shock doctors etc.) and those members of the powerful organizations within psychiatry who have colluded with the pharmaceutical industry at the highest levels to promote the agenda and practice of Biological Psychiatry. These people are part of the ruling class (not necessarily by their level of income) but by virtue of the important role they play in leading and maintaining an institution that has become increasingly necessary for the survival of the entire capitalist system.

    At MIA there are several psychiatrists who write here that are part of the “Critical Psychiatry” movement. I have challenged their thinking on many questions (as many others have), including there efforts to hold onto or salvage the profession of psychiatry. While I might have certain criticisms of some of their positions, I would still evaluate their role (in this period of our history) as overall positive and I would NEVER refer to them as part of the “enemy” despite my critical analysis of Biological Psychiatry as a whole.

    Even if Philip Hickey is correct in his analysis that Dr. Datta is defending or holding on to elements of psychiatry’s epistemology, this does NOT, therefore, make him the “enemy.” This only makes him (IMO) wrong on certain positions but clearly someone still on our side of the barricades that we can have principled struggle with as our movement continues to develop.

    Nor do I believe that Philip Hickey is somehow labeling Dr. Datta “an enemy” because he has these disagreements with him as a member of the psychiatric profession. I hope he and others will speak to these questions of how we define “friend” and “enemy” in the context of these polemics that take place at MIA and other websites. Certain language and characterizations of people are vitally important to consider when viewing the overall mission and purpose of MIA.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    When I say that Biological Psychiatry (with all its genetic and reductionist theories and practices) is very useful to the ruling classes in order to maintain an overall oppressive system, how does that somehow translate into my supporting psychiatry’s legitimacy???

    If I were to say that the two psychologists who made a few million dollars for designing and leading the torture program for the CIA were very USEFUL for the nefarious goals of the U.S. government, how would that somehow translate into my supporting their premise for doing so???

    You said: ” However, you lose me entirely when you propose that the fabrication of *brain diseases* and *biological- even genetic defects” was a legitimate role for psychiatry to play…”

    Where have I ever stated that psychiatry’s role in creating disease labeling is legitimate? All my writings have criticized such practices on the part of psychiatry. I would agree with the thrust of all your above stated critiques regarding psychiatry’s lack of scientific, moral, and ethical legitimacy. Where have I implied anything different?

    You said: “I take issue with your suggesting that there could be a reason for those in whom our society placed explicit trust, to undermine every aspect of medical practice that we believe exists for our protection.”

    Katie, in order for us to create the material conditions for Biological Psychiatry’s demise, along with all other forms of human oppression, we need to critically understand how all oppressive institutions have come into being and how the ruling classes RATIONALIZE and sustain their need to exist. “Know thy enemy” is a mantra for any successful liberation movement. That is all I was attempting to do with my prior comments.

    Richard

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Katie

    I can only respond briefly before I head off to work.

    You have misread my comment . In no way was I implying that psychiatry’s disease labeling was or is legitimate. I was only framing the political context in which these oppressive theories and practices arose.

    My stand against psychiatry has been well documented in the content of all my blog writings.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    I love your unrelenting critiques of Biological Psychiatry and I agree with all those who say it cannot be reformed.

    However, I believe you narrow and weaken your overall critique when you criticize Dr. Datta’s attempt to analyze the particular political context for the meteoric growth of modern psychiatry.

    In Bob Whitaker’s “Anatomy of an Epidemic” he makes a salient point about the weaken position of psychiatry during upheaval of the 1960’s when all institutions of power and control were being exposed and critically evaluated.

    We cannot forget the fact that the uprisings of the 60’s shook the entire American capitalist system to its foundations. It was very important for the ruling classes to re-contextualize the myriad of innate forms of trauma (poverty, racism, patriarchy, war, and psychiatric abuse) away from the system that creates and sustains these injustices to INSTEAD target genetic defects and so-called brain diseases. The newly developed biological theories and forms of psychiatric “treatment” not only conveniently “blame the victim” but also create favorable conditions to anesthetize those sections of the population most likely to become potential political rebels.

    This was not necessarily some grand conspiracy of social control (however, I believe some of the 1% are very aware of its value), but rather a perfect melding of political and economic interests of multiple institutions whose collusion advanced their own agenda and helped preserve and strengthen the status quo. This collusion of necessity had its origins even prior to the Reagan years, although it certainly did grow exponentially during this period.

    We cannot forget that Biological Psychiatry is the WEDDING of the American Psychiatric Association (and other leading psychiatric organizations in the world) with the pharmaceutical industry and the major training institutions of modern psychiatry. Each part of this marital triad represents a “perfect storm” of existence for the preservation of the whole.

    Philip. I think it is correct to challenge Dr. Datta regarding what parts of psychiatry he wishes to defend or want to preserve. So far I have found his blogs to be educational and interesting. It has not been clear to me that his writings are somehow aimed at preserving the status quo. I look forward to his response.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Historically, whenever any oppressive institution comes under criticism and intense struggle to remove it from history’s stage, there are always system apologists who attempt to promote desperate justifications for preserving and rescuing it from its ultimate demise.

    In this case Allen Francis appears to be playing that role by still having one foot firmly planted within Biological Psychiatry while dangling a few toes in half baked efforts to reform that which can never be reformed.

    I have used the following definition in prior blogs and comments :

    “Biological Psychiatry is the wedding of genetic based theories of so-called “mental illness” with the American Psychiatric Association and other leading psychiatric organizations in the world, together with the pharmaceutical industry, and the major training institutions for psychiatry.

    The APA is an essential force within this institution and shares equal responsibility with Big Pharma and the training institutions for modern psychiatry. They all work together in a symbiotic relationship; each depending on the other for their existence.

    Stopping direct advertising for psych drugs will do little (at this point in history) to stop the oppressive power and control exercised by Biological Psychiatry. In Australia there is no advertising of drugs; is there any less of a problem with the drugging of millions of people and the rampant use of force and coercion on vulnerable individuals labeled with “mental illness?”

    Within our culture of addiction legally prescribed mind altering (psych) drugs have now become deeply imbedded in our collective psychology of dependency. The withdrawal syndromes alone (for all categories of these drugs) provide an absolute guarantee of returning customers aside from their actual and perceived effects (temporary or otherwise) on psychological well being.

    As horrible as jails are in this country can anyone truly prove that they represent a worse alternative than what modern forms of “treatment” offer people in today’s world. At least in jails people know beforehand exactly what they are getting.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    The civil rights movement was anything BUT nonviolent. Many Blacks and a few white freedom fighters lost their lives in those struggles, and we can’t forget the thousands of physical beatings and other forms of psychological violence perpetrated.

    Clearly the main strategy of MLK was nonviolence, but that definitely did not prevent the power structure from using enormous amounts of violence attempting to suppress it. Within these battles “armed self defense” played a necessary role for those who felt most vulnerable to attack.

    Duane, I can’t imagine that if you were Black and living in the South during this period that you wouldn’t have considered arming yourself in some form of self defense.

    And Duane, as to the role of violence in history, are you saying that you would condemn those who rose up in the American revolution for independence?

    Would you condemn Spartacus, Nat Turner, Toussaint Overture, John Brown, and Harriet Tubman? After all Harriet Tubman consulted with John Brown prior to Harpers Ferry, and I read that she help recruit for the uprising.

    Strategy and tactics in any movement are critically important for achieving a victory worth fighting for. Standing on history’s side lines and repeating phrases such as …”they used violence. So I’m out.” shows no understanding or respect for the tremendous difficulties faced and the enormous sacrifices endured by those freedom fighters who have preceded us.

    Richard.

    Report comment

  • Sera

    Great blog and great discussion.

    One quibble I would have is with your use of a few words of description of what took place in Ferguson (Oldhead has raised a similar point in one of his comments):

    You said: “Furthermore, the riots that ensued following the failure to indict were unquestionably out of control and a far less than ideal way to make a point.”

    Given all the circumstances it would be more accurate to call the uprisings related to the killings of Black youth in this country “rebellions” as opposed to “riots.” This is what we called what took place in the major urban areas in 1968 when Martin Luther King was assassinated, and also in LA when the cops, who beat Rodney King within an inch of his life, were exonerated for their crimes. Their would have been no serious civil rights legislation in the 60’s without these “rebellions” that literally shook the American system to its foundations.

    Historically, significant uprisings of the masses against all forms of oppression are never perfectly conducted, nor without some excesses. Need I point out that the current order of things in the world, and the powers that maintain it, is engorged with daily “excesses” of violence and oppression that clearly dwarfs any forms of misdirection in Ferguson. Minor excesses, in no way, should detract from the overall importance of these events nor underplay the risks and difficulty of even initiating such actions. The word “riots” tends to focus on the minor excesses, or lootings, which does not represent the main character of what took place.

    True civil disobedience must occur when the current laws and order of things are oppressive to the broad masses, or a section of the masses. This means disrupting “business as usual” and/or breaking “civility” or certain laws in order to expose the oppressive nature of the status quo and galvanize a movement to both expose and eventually transform it into something more humane.

    Some people carry out “civil disobedience” in an “orderly” fashion by informing the authorities ahead of time that they will conduct a peaceful sit in and allow themselves to be arrested. Others choose NOT to make it so easy on those maintaining order by NOT announcing their intentions for breaking civility or laws (like blocking highways) and making the cops work a lot harder to try to arrest them, if at all. While each approach has some effectiveness, the latter form of strategy, to my way of thinking, captures the most imagination and true spirit of the greatest freedom fighters that have preceded us.

    Sera, I know you are clearly standing with those who have stood up in these battles, I am only attempting to deepen the discussion regarding the significance of these events and how we should view the complicated nature of using dissent to challenge the present order of things.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sinead

    I would not question your courage and willingness to stand up for what you believe. You have shared details of your struggles in the trenches and I admire you for the stances you have taken; many times at great risk and with personal sacrifice. Perhaps the unfortunate outcome of some of those particular battles has dampened your outlook on the value of this form of struggle as part of a much larger political strategy?

    We differ on the role of organized political struggle and on what it will take to dismantle the current mental health system and render Biological Psychiatry to the dust bin of history. Individuals and groups standing up in various forms of resistance to “business as usual” will be one of the more important avenues to building a much larger more powerful movement.

    The word “naïve” has more meaning when applied to your ideas about convincing stockholders to abandon supporting the sale of psychiatric drugs and stripping psychiatrists of their “MD” status.

    What these positions ignore is just how entrenched and necessary Biological Psychiatry has become for the maintenance of the entire capitalist system. In our culture of addiction, psychiatric drugs have gained a foothold of acceptance and dependency that almost rivals some other popular substances that have been around much longer.

    The rich and powerful, not only control distribution of psychiatric drugs but also the key instruments of manipulating public opinion about them. They are highly profitable, and together with the role of “force’ in our legal system, they are very useful to control the more volatile sections of the population. Anything to divert and numb people from rising up is very useful to preserving their system.

    The powers that be in today’s world would not be willing to ultimately strip psychiatrists of their MD status nor discourage the use of psychiatric drugs; this would ultimately undermine their own power and hasten the fall of their empire.

    The struggle to end psychiatric abuse has to be part of a much larger human rights struggle on a grand scale. The struggle by those working “inside” the current mental health system MUST be united with those on the outside or it will end up nowhere but in the dead end world of petty reforms.

    Respectfully Richard

    Report comment

  • Sinead

    I support many of your positions taken at MIA, but on this topic I believe you are off the mark.

    No commenter here (that I know of) has criticized the idea of professionals (or anyone else for that matter) coming together for the purpose of discussing possible visions of the future; that is, a future significantly different from that represented by the current oppressive mental health system.

    However, once that gathering takes place and those “visions” are presented this all becomes fair game for evaluation and critical appraisal. Isn’t this the kind of dialogue being encouraged here at MIA? And this includes evaluating the actual demographic makeup of those asked to present positions at such a conference.

    Sinead, your comments have heavily implied that there is something fundamentally wrong with people beginning such an appraisal of this conference. To raise some questions, or even criticisms of the content of some of those “visions” presented, or what actions may actually be necessary to achieve them, all this should be ENCOURAGED and PRAISED, NOT viewed as some sort of “sniping” from the sidelines.

    IMO it is a very good thing that this conference occurred and that Laura Delano (as perhaps the only psych survivor) was able to speak at it. The mere presence of Laura Delano does not necessarily legitimize the demographic makeup of the conference nor does it somehow validate the thrust of all the “visions” presented, or somehow support the actual path for how we might achieve them. I feel confident that Laura would probably say she was speaking for herself as a survivor, and not as some type of spokes person for ALL survivors. Sinead, it was unfair of you to somehow put her in such an implied position by your comments.

    Frank’s questioning of the overall demographic (the lack of a significant presence of psych survivors) is clearly a legitimate concern. Who needs to be in the forefront of this movement against psychiatric abuse and the dismantling of the current mental health system? We are certainly NOT lacking in enough articulate and passionate survivors who are quite capable of providing the necessary leadership for this movement. And yes, I believe radical dssidents working inside the system also have an important role to play.

    Frank’s hindsight regarding the choice of certain words and phrases he used in earlier comments has since been clarified by him. His critical points (as I understood them) regarding proposals for minor reform or slow change, especially emanating from those professionals that may have a clear economic and careerist interest in perhaps maintaining aspects of the status quo, are worthy of serious evaluation as this movement develops.

    Sinead, there are two kinds of “denial.” One is that “there is NO problem.” The other is “the problem ain’t that bad” and “it will not require a total dismantling of the current system through radical systemic change.”

    Your main suggestions made earlier (which I will paraphrase) – that we mainly need to focus our movement on attempting to “strip psychiatrists of their MD status” and “convince shareholders in the pharmaceutical industry that psychiatric drugs are poisonous and therefore cannot, and should not, be profitable” and that “rising up to fight the system will only lead to survivors becoming isolated and targeted by their oppressors,” is, IMO, somewhat naïve, and does not represent a valid revolutionary strategy for the way forward.

    So guess what! The struggle over the way forward for our movement GOES ON right here in this thread, and that is exactly what NEEDS TO BE happening. So respectfully, to you Sinead, and to all those who devoted their valuable time and effort to the conference being discussed, keep searching for answers and solutions and fear no debate or criticism, for that is how we can actually change the world into a better place.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • The summation of this conference was very interesting and thought provoking; thank you Bob Wipond for this important article.

    I agree with the thrust of Ted’s comment and will add some additional points.

    In my blog “What is Biological Psychiatry Part 3; Thoughts on Hasting its Demise” I made the following statement:

    “As important as the creation of “alternatives” and “parallel systems” are for us to support and work to develop, they CANNOT substitute for or replace the primary need to educate the masses and organize forces against this system. Historically this system has always found ways to isolate, attack, demoralize, bankrupt, crush, or co-opt those who have attempted to create parallel alternatives outside the mainstream. This is NOT a reason to avoid this work, only a caution to make sure it is not the only (or even the main thing) we devote our energies to organize. It is so very easy for the overall struggle to create alternative systems to gradually morph into or be coopted into various forms of reformist dead ends. History provides us many lessons where this has happened.”

    I have much admiration for those people creating positive alternatives, and I will always support them. But I will do so with the cautious understanding that history has taught us about the dangers of reformist strategies for change.

    I am glad that Peter Whitehouse brought up the question of “unbridled capitalism” as an obstacle for change. However, I hope this does not imply that somehow it is actually possible to “bridle” capitalism and then everything will fall into place.

    Capitalism can never be “bridled.” Capitalism (and the inner workings of “capital” itself) by its very nature is imbedded with an “expand or die” inner logic of existence. Those that lead such a system can never plan a future beyond a few years, nor can they survive as leaders unless they are maximizing profit and eating up their competition; the planet be damned!

    Capitalism stands as the primary historical impediment to saving the planet from environmental destruction – to advancing genuine science – to providing the material conditions for safe and responsive communities for all our necessary human needs.

    And today Biological Psychiatry ( with its various forms of social control of the more volatile sections of the population combined with its necessary connection to a healthy economy through the highly profitable pharmaceutical corporations) has become an essential institution helping to prop up the entire capitalist system. When charting our course forward we cannot escape this reality no matter how hard we try.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    Yes, anyone can be reductionist if they do not apply science and other forms of investigation in a correct way.

    My point was not that Biological Psychiatry is absolutely derived from religious philosophy, but only that there are some similarities to the theories of “original sin.”

    The problems with Biological Psychiatry cannot, and should not, be blamed on atheism or secular humanism: this is foolishness.

    In the source http://phys.org/news108005993.html you listed above the statistics used were only based on a survey of 1820 physicians in which only 100 psychiatrist replied. This is hardly a fair or scientific appraisal of psychiatry.

    However, in this survey you cited only 17% of the psychiatrists said they were non religious, which only proves my point stated above:

    ” the vast majority of the adherents to Biological Psychiatry are firm believers in religion and God…”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Reverend

    You say: ” At present, Biological Psychiatry is, indeed, a “psychiatric priesthood”, as you have said. Though it is a SECULAR psychiatric priesthood WITHOUT a SOUL!”

    How can you really call Biological Psychiatry a “SECULAR psychiatric priesthood”? I would bet that the vast majority of the adherents to Biological Psychiatry are firm believers in religion and God and attend some church or synagogue on a regular basis.

    In reality there is more of a direct religious connection by the mere fact that Biological Psychiatry presents a diseased/based/drug centered/medical model that is essentially founded on a base of “GENETIC THEORIES OF ORIGINAL SIN.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    This was good beginning analysis of the severe limitations of a reformist strategy attempting to guide a movement to end psychiatric oppression within today’s world.

    To say that Biological Psychiatry can (or should) be reformed is like saying that the monopoly capitalist system can be reformed. It would be the equivalent of asking Dracula to suck water instead of blood. The true nature of the economic and political system that gave rise to, and sustains, modern psychiatry was “the elephant in the room” not directly addressed in this blog.

    These two institutions have become completely interconnected and mutually dependent on one another. In my blog titled, “What is Biological Psychiatry Part 2: Anatomy of Power and Control,” I made the following statement:

    “Today’s Biological Psychiatry has become such an essential part of the economic and political fabric holding together our present day society, including its ability and need to maintain control over the more volatile sections of the population, that its future existence may be totally interdependent on the rise and fall of the entire system itself.”

    This interdependence is also fundamentally related to just how profitable the sale of psychiatric drugs are today, and how vitally important their genetically based theories and the expansive nature of the pharmaceutical industry is to the future health of the capitalist economy.

    Modern psychiatry will not leave history’s stage and/or be “abolished” until the masses of people have enough power and control (within an entirely new type of society) to actually pass the necessary laws that outlaw ALL of the forms of oppressive power and control this institution wields within today’s society.

    When these conditions finally come into being (through great struggle and upheaval throughout society) and when the masses of people are fundamentally educated about the false science that underpins the psychiatric profession, formal “abolishment” will not be necessary (or necessarily the best option to advocate for). This institution will simply “wither away.” People will have far more liberating options to choose from within such a revolutionary new society.

    All this will require FAR more advanced organization and forms of direct mass action than currently exists today. We all have much work to do in order to bring these conditions into being.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Great article about a great man.

    A powerful reminder for those of us working within the system to critically examine the actual content of our helping relationship with those in need.

    Are we just trying to take away suffering, anger, and rage at oppression, OR trying to help people come to their own understanding of its connection to an unjust world, and thus be empowered to channel the resulting insights and coping skills into transforming their own reality (perhaps together with those that share that reality) into a more humane world?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Madmom

    When dealing with an individual person (such as your step-son) who is abusing substances, yes , of course, you educate them about the dangers and then appeal to their sense of individual responsibility to take charge of their lives.

    In all other situations we must target the real criminals in society who are responsible for and make a huge profit from our culture of addiction and the promotion of quick fixes (in the form of pills) as the so-called solution for extreme forms of psychological distress. People are not born lazy or irresponsible; it is a learned process.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • James

    Good article and good topic to explore.

    I recommend the following brief article that explores the politics and money behind the rise in the use of pain “medications” (drugs) in this country. http://www.thepoisonreview.com/2012/12/16/the-money-and-influence-behind-pain-as-a-fifth-vital-sign/

    In the middle to late 1990’s certain doctors working with the pharmaceutical industry pushed a powerful campaign to make “pain” the so-called fifth vital sign. That is, in addition to heart rate, blood pressure, temperature, and respiratory function, all doctors were being pressured to ask every patient to rate their level of pain from 1-10.

    So-called pain doctors and certain drug companies, of course, had a direct self-interest in getting more people to take prescribed pain drugs. Keep in mind that this is about the time when the powerful drug, oxycontin, hit the market. Part of this campaign pushed the notion that doctors should, in fact, be punished if they ignored the “fifth vital sign” and they did not prescribe pain drugs to someone requesting them.

    All this was the beginning of a major prescription drug epidemic that has led to millions of people becoming addicted to pain drugs and the opening of thousands of pain clinics throughout the country. This has fueled a rash of drug overdose deaths and expanded the heroin epidemic raging throughout our cities and suburbs. And it should be pointed out again and again, that over 30% of all people dying of an opiate overdose have benzos in their system.

    Biological Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry have much blood on their hands coming from many places where the medical model has been shaped and distorted to promote their own economic agenda.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    I agree totally and want to add to your comment.

    My use of the words “wither away” in previous comments was not intended, in any way, to present a passive or patient approach to fighting against Biological Psychiatry. Institutions such as this will never fall unless they are hit at by major mass struggle.

    Because of the pervasive nature of this institution and its role in propping up the status quo by drugging people into passive oblivion and also by shifting focus onto genetics and away from targeting the inherent daily traumas perpetuated by modern capitalism, this makes the fight against psychiatric oppression a very critical human rights battle in the overall struggle to end ALL oppression.

    Fighting against psychiatric oppression actually exposes many aspects of what’s inherently wrong with a profit based system and points people more clearly in the direction of creating a world that provides much more humane forms of human interaction and social supports.

    While Biological Psychiatry will most likely not completely fall until people are convinced enough to fight for a replacement to the capitalist system, the struggle against it could be quite pivotal in this overall struggle. We all have much work to do in order to create more favorable conditions for this to happen, sooner not later.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    Great post. This really helps clarify many issues facing how our movement is being conceptualized and viewed by others

    One quibble might be with how the word “abolition” is being viewed.

    I am firmly anti-psychiatry and firmly on the left; believing that psychiatry is an integral part of a social control mechanism that now sustains a profit based capitalist system. And equally related to its existence is the enormous profits derived from the sale of psychiatric drugs.

    Therefore, I don’t believe psychiatry will go out of existence as long as we have a profit based system. If revolutionary systemic changes were possible, I don’t believe a new society should pass laws to outlaw (abolish) psychiatry. I definitely believe ALL of psychiatry’s methods of coercion and control SHOULD be abolished and its epistemology sharply critiqued and criticized.

    If this were to happen then psychiatry would simply wither away; people would just stop (over time) choosing to be involved or associated with it. Perhaps this is what you were referring when you used the words “phasing” out. In this sense psychiatry would be “historically” phased out or abolished, but not by decree or the passage of some law.

    I am making this point about the concept of “abolishing” an institution as an important departure from some of the past mistakes of prior revolutionary movements and societies where they (at times) mishandled dealing with the middle classes and intellectuals.

    Even though we are not now at the stage of making these kinds of revolutionary type decisions (new laws in a new society) we cannot underestimate the importance of how are movement will be viewed and understood by a growing mass movement on these critical questions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    You said: “If the solution means cops in hospitals, I don’t want to be part of the solution.”

    So you draw the line on no cops in the hospitals, BUT you’ll occasionally use ‘force’ ( forced drugging and restraints) that can sometimes be more harmful than a physical beating by a cop.

    You’ll draw the line on no cops in the hospital, BUT sometimes work along side of a psychiatrist that may be a serial poly-pharmacist or may have recommended (and may actually have carried out) ECT.

    Your stand lacks moral consistency.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    Yes, it is true that you only advocate force in very “limited” circumstances, but this position severely MINIMIZES the potential harm done in those situations and defiantly JUSTIFIES it.

    Just as the internet (since the 90’s) has provided forums and thousands of pages of testimony regarding the harm done by psychiatric drugs, so has the growing number of narratives regarding the harm done by forced drugging and forced hospitalization. Some of the best narratives have appeared at MIA. DO NOT CONTINUE TO IGNORE AND DOWNPLAY THIS VALUABLE EVIDENCE!

    Jonathan, you said:

    “I will fight you or any others who try to suggest that hospitals should now have police involvement in matters of violence.”

    What world are you living in? Police are involved ALL the time in matters of ‘force’ and violence in psychiatric hospitals. Don’t police frequently “escort” aggressive people (in psychological distress) into locked psych wards on a regular basis?

    And when (or if) a psychiatrist or nurse is struck or assaulted by a patient on a psych ward are you telling me that you don’t believe the police are called and that person is prosecuted?

    Jonathan, your support for the “limited” use of ‘force’ leaves the crack of the door open just wide enough to allow Biological Psychiatry to have more justification for keeping it ALL the way open for its pervasive and oppressive forms of ‘force’ and control on a broad scale.

    Jonathan, on this dividing line issue there is no middle ground that will remain stable for long. You are (or will become) either part of the problem or part of the solution.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • AA

    I appreciate you commenting on this and challenging my position.

    Historically at MIA I have always been very respectful of people who have different views, and I have been very patient in my struggles with them, and will continue to do so.

    I have been much harder on certain doctors and people in positions of power in the system who have been arrogant and condescending in their approach. I believe the more power someone wields within the mental health system, the more damage they can potentially do to people caught within the system.

    These individuals (in positions of power) should be held to a higher standard of evaluation when it comes to examining their views at MIA. Never personally attacked, but their ideas and behaviors rigorously dissected for all to see.

    Jonathan holds such a position of power (at times), but more importantly he is defending one of the cardinal instruments of power that all of Biological Psychiatry is allowed to wield in today’s world – the unmitigated use of ‘FORCE.’

    Jonathan, is no longer someone who is just doing the best he can in difficult circumstances. He is NO LONGER ignorant on this matter. He remains unyielding and never shows ANY humility that he could be wrong on his use of ‘force.’ He has been given (for the past two years) some of the very best narrative stories by survivors detailing psychological harm caused by ‘force,’ and also presented with the highest level of political arguments challenging its role in a supposed “free” society.

    As a so-called “reformer” in our movement, his calcified position on ‘force’ plays a backward role of attempting to make the more radical activists in this movement appear “extreme” and out of touch with reality. This must be exposed for what it is.

    If you carefully read all of Jonathan’s responses to me and my retorts, you will see a growing pattern of unprincipled methods of struggle where he purposely mischaracterizes my positions to make himself sound more reasonable and benign. I am calling him out on his distortions and dodging methods of struggle.

    As the debate around ‘force’ has progressed further, grey is rapidly turning to black. To keep defending ‘force’ in the face of such enlightened calls for its abolition, is to continue walking on a fence that becomes as sharp as a razor blade. A most difficult task (especially for those in positions of power) to perform without eventually having some blood on their hands.

    AA, you said: “And even if they don’t get killed and are taken to jail, which in case you haven’t heard, does alot of forced drugging also, how is that better for them vs. the situation than what Jonathan describes?”

    ‘Force’ inside the mental health system directly kills in some instances, and may very well often “kill” down the road as the cumulative effects of its use takes its toll (over time) on those subjected to it.

    If forced drugging is carried out inside the jails then we should expose it and definitely should demonstrate against it.

    Jails don’t pretend to provide compassionate support for people. The mental health system, and those that work inside it, do pretend to ALWAYS “help” people. We have to stand up and loudly declare that ‘FORCE’ IS NEVER HELP!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    You said: “I am trying not to twist your words.” You have done so several times and continue to do so.

    You said: “Forced to call the police is another term for…using force. And it’s somethng I see folks here repeatedly trying to wriggle out of. Though you say you don’t support force ever…is just not true. You support allowing the police to use force in these rare extreme conditions.That is not abolition of force.”

    I DON’T SUPPORT ALLOWING THE POLICE TO USE FORCE. I DON’T SUPPORT THE POLICE NOR DO I WORK FOR THE POLICE! STOP SAYING I DO!

    I work inside THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM and so do you. I choose NOT to use ‘force’ within that system. You adamantly defend your RIGHT TO USE ‘FORCE’ INSIDE THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM.

    A system, BTW, that I believe you say you are a part of to HELP people with psychological distress GET BETTER. If you want to somehow justify the use of ‘force’ then JOIN THE POLICE. Their role is to maintain “order” not provide compassionate support. In a different type of society they (the police) might be able to do both, unfortunately this is not the world we presently live in.

    Don’t pretend to be a compassionate helper and then sneak in the ‘FORCE’ when the going gets tough and then justify it by saying somehow you are BETTER than the police. YOU ARE DOING THEIR DIRTY WORK FOR THEM.

    Jonathan, as much as I dislike the police, I am forced to call them when I am robbed or assaulted. I avoid them at all costs and barely tolerate them when I have to deal with them.

    A person labeled as “mentally ill” needs to learn how to negotiate the world when they are not forced inside the psych wards; this is an important matter of present day survival. And that means learning how to avoid the police, and learning how to deal with them when confronted by them. If they are breaking the law they need to know that they will have to contend with the police.

    WHY DO YOU DENY THEM THESE LESSONS BY ALLOWING (‘ENABLING”) THEM TO REMAIN WITHIN THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE INSIDE THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM?!

    And I need to remind you again that this is the cycle of violence that you continue to defend your RIGHT TO USE as you see fit.

    It’s your choice. Become a true compassionate helper that condemns ‘force’ in that system, or become a cop. You can’t do both and claim you’re on some type of moral high ground, ‘cuz you ain’t!’

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    You said: “I just can’t support the idea that we should criminalize everyone who is aggressive/violent and psychotic. I take exception to the idea that.”

    You are twisting words and phrases and creating “straw man” arguments to justify your support of ‘force’ and forced drugging.

    Where did I EVER say that, or where did anyone else opposing ‘force’ on this thread promote such a position.

    We should ALWAYS avoid (wherever possible) involving the police, the courts, and the prison system when dealing with people in extreme psychological states. My trust in those institutions is on a par with psych wards which you SHOULD know from prior discussions is not very high.

    You said: “… I think it is highly troubling to turn over every aggressive and psychotic person over to the justice system. The humane thing to do is to give them space until the psychosis passes. If you call that enabling…so be it.”

    Jonathan, you are unfortunately now making things up about my position to prop up your increasingly indefensible position on ‘force.’

    Where did I EVER say “to turn over every aggressive and psychotic person to the justice system.”

    So let’s be clear on YOUR position as stated above:
    “The HUMANE (emphasis added) thing to do is to give them “SPACE” (emphasis added) while the psychosis passes.”

    Based on your past (admitted) practice in some emergency situations, the “HUMANE” thing to do is tying someone down to a gurney and giving them the “SPACE”; a forced neuroleptic injection.

    How BENIGN you tried to make it sound above. But many here at MIA are very aware of the so-called “SPACE” you are carving out for them, and it ain’t so benign or pretty. For many it is extremely life damaging.

    Jonathan, the “enabling” that is referred to above (by me) involves the frequent cycle of forced treatment that many people who are caught within the mental health system seem to repeat and are all too familiar with.

    Many of these people know that if they defiantly remain acting out or violent that this will often force people like you to forcibly drug them and incarcerate them in a psych ward. They don’t really want it to happen, but they also do not want to calm down and obey you.

    This is very much like a defiant son rebelling against an abusive father. He will sometimes push the situation to a point where he will force the father to play out his abusive role so the son can hold on to his anger and prove to himself that he is the ultimate victim (which he is).

    This way (the son) does not have to look at or take responsibility for some of his own behavior. And of course the father feels justified (for his own violent actions) because the son may have been out of control. The cycle of violence and dysfunction continues, each “enabling” the other.

    Sometimes parents are forced, as a last resort, (when a child is completely out of control) to take their child to a dept. of social services where ultimately a judge will often pose the question to the teenage child, “would you rather follow the rules of your parents or live in a foster home for a while.” Sometimes this coercive choice becomes enough to convince the child to behave better and/or perhaps the physical or emotional abuse by the parents will be revealed to authorities.

    Jonathan, you are caught up in an analogous situation in the work you do. You are playing the role of the abusive father/mental health worker who justifies his abuse based on the out of control behavior of the unfortunate patient in the emergency room. The patient in this situation (because of dire life circumstances) is also not willing and/or able to take responsibility for their behavior at that moment. “Enabling” is not the solution to this dilemma.

    Jonathan, my position is as follows; PLEASE PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION AND DO NOT DISTORT MY WORDS: in these extreme (hopefully rare) potentially out of control situations the person acting aggressive or violent needs to be given clear and consistent (over time) options by the caregivers.

    For example:
    ” Nigel, you need to calm down now or things are going to happen here that neither of us want to happen. In the past you may have been forcibly restrained and then given a forced injection of powerful drugs and ended up on a locked unit of a psych ward. This was wrong and abusive treatment. I have participated in that abuse myself and very much regret my prior action actions, and I am very sorry that you may have endured that type of “treatment” in the past.”
    “Now we do things differently. I promise you that someone will sit down and listen to your problems or grievances in your life and attempt to find answers and solutions. You will not be drugged against your will or locked up against your will. You may be given some prescribed drugs if you request them. If you are feeling out of control we have some short term sedative drugs to help you sleep or relax more.”

    “Nigel, I am very worried about your situation. Because we don’t yet have safe alternative programs for people in your situation if you don’t calm down now and continue to act aggressive or violent, we will be forced to call the police. This will be our only available option.”

    “Nigel, I would hate to have to do this because I do not trust the police to know how to handle you in a compassionate way, and you may end up being isolated and abused. We do not want this to happen, so PLEASE, Nigel, do not force us to make this call. Nigel do you clearly understand the situation and the options before you.”

    Now, Nigel has been given clear options. If he makes the wrong choice here, it is terribly unfortunate, but it is a FAR better option (at this primitive place in our history) than the forced drugging and forced “treatment” that you, Jonathan have to offer. An option that you BTW also have the ability and the right to refuse to carry out.

    And Jonathan, if Nigel ever comes back to your emergency room, because he was NOT “enabled” in the cycle of violence that you offer. I bet the odds are that he would choose to calm himself down the next time and possible accept your offer to talk about his problems, maybe self admit himself in a crisis stabilization unit (we have one in my city) and perhaps take some drugs to help him get a nights sleep. In this new scenario he would avoid being re-traumatized and his chances of getting better would be increased.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    Here is something to ponder regarding your defense of ‘force’ when there may be threats of violence:

    Ponder DEEPLY this comment by Seth Farber in his poignant blog posting above mine:

    “I know from reading and experience that people like this assailant almost always have prior histories of violence. These patients become repeat offenders because “mental patients” have neither rights nor responsibilities – as Thomas Szasz said – and thus violent patients do not learn that they are responsible for their actions and will be held accountable for their crimes. The system unwittingly – but willfully – encourages repeated criminal offenses.”

    Jonathan, your position on this question is further “ENABLING” both the oppressive nature of the current mental health system AND also the violent pattern of behavior of the aggressive patient. Neither will stand a chance of improving if your position is maintained.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Russerford

    Thanks so much for the positive response. This is not an easy question but so vital for the struggle to end psychiatric power and abuse.

    In the scenario you laid out regarding a loved one’s delusions, how about this for a possible solution: Why not get a small group of family members and supporters (3-5 people who are comfortable in the street) and all agree that this mission is, indeed, very important, and all agree to go on this mission with her, and insist that there needs to be back up support because of the mission’s overall importance. You care for her so much that you insist on the need for this back up support.

    This is not really lying because to this woman this mission is vitally important, and you are offering loving support for her by agreeing to take on this mission. If you complete the mission and no one shows up at the secret location to meet her, then she may develop doubts about her delusion which could be step towards healing, and at least she will know that people care enough not to fight with her about her perceived reality and also found ways to support her.

    At the MIA film festival we saw a Japanese film that contained similar themes in a group treatment living arrangement where someone wanted to carry out a possibly dangerous mission to see a UFO. They handled the situation in a very unique and somewhat humorous way.

    Your relative definitely does not belong in a hospital and with some brainstorming maybe your family can all find a way to support her through this crisis.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    You said: “I think this comes down to my fundamental question. If you oppose force, why do you support police and the prison system for working with the “mentally ill”?”

    I do NOT support the police or the jail system working with those labeled “mentally ill.” The prison system in this country is oppressive and the police have a role in society of maintaining order. If the status quo inordinately benefits the 1% at the top of the pyramid and is unjust to those in the middle and especially at the bottom, then therefore the maintenance of “order” by the police is mainly for the benefit of the 1% at the top.

    I support people creating alternatives to keep people in distress away from the police and the jails and the psych wards. I have no illusions that this can be widely accomplished without major systemic changes broadly in society, as I referred to in my last response.

    So what do we do until these bigger changes take place? Organize. Take a stand, and fight back! Refuse to go with the flow. Refuse to do the system’s dirty work. Let some one else do it, and then call them out on it and shame them (with science and survivor narratives) where ever they are and where ever they go.

    You said: “If someone who is labeled “mentally ill” is attacking a vulnerable person, would you intervene…and how? ”

    Here is the best I can offer in a very difficult dilemma for anyone working inside the system.They (the distressed person) should be told ahead of time what will happen if they are violent or threatening violence. They should be pulled away from harming some one else. They should be offered support, consolation and compassion. If they are so aroused that they cannot calm themselves (with this kind of support) then they should be offered short term use of sedative drugs (such as Benzos).

    If none of this support or offer of drugs works then they should be told that if they cannot control themselves the police will be called to intervene. They should never be forcibly drugged or contained in a psych ward against their will; the short and long term harm FAR exceeds other alternatives.

    I believe that if psychiatry was forced to turn over its control of labeled people to other forces in society (even jails), than societal outrage regarding their treatment of such individuals would force more benign approaches to emerge in these other institutions, even prisons and jails.

    We need to shine a spotlight on the inordinate and oppressive power that psychiatry wields in this society. We cannot do this by accepting (or reconciling) their right to drug and detain people against their will in ANY circumstances, violent or not. Do you really trust Biological Psychiatry to safely detain some one in this level of distress?

    Jonathan, do not under estimate the powerful effect you could have on other people around you by taking a strong stand against the use of forced drugging and forced hospitalization.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    Thanks for your willingness to engage on this question. Of course I was thinking about you when I wrote this blog based on past discussions at MIA.

    First off. I am not a pacifist and my position on this question is not coming from that type of philosophy. If someone is being attacked or harmed they must be able to fight back and use ‘force’ or violence in order to protect themselves and others that may be in danger.

    If a woman is being raped she has every right to use any kind of force (including lethal force) to protect herself from harm or degradation. Human beings in slavery also have every right to rise up,” by any means necessary,” to achieve their freedom. In these situations people should do everything possible to avoid adopting the inhumane methods of their attackers, and struggle against being motivated out of revenge in their quest for freedom.

    If someone is being violent towards others or threatening violence – this represents a violation of the law. These are laws that any humane society must have. People should be presented (where possible) with options. They should be warned to stop these behaviors and told that the police will be called if they don’t stop. Now, of course, I do not have any faith in our criminal justice system in this country, but this very difficult option is, in the final analysis, a BETTER overall choice than forced drugging and/or forced hospitalization.

    Keep in mind that at the MIA film festival this past weekend , Dr. Allen Francis made the same argument as you Jonathan; that is, demonizing the jail system in such a way as to say that the mental health system was a much better alternative, with all its problems. Is this really true? At least in the jails people are not deceived into thinking they are being helped with all the drugs and indoctrination of disease labeling. People know and expect jails to be rotten and they do the best they can to steel themselves against their effects.

    Jonathan, do you or anyone else , who has forcibly drugged a person and forcibly contained a person in a psych ward for a period of time know for sure the actual long term outcomes of those actions? Do you know how badly this use of ‘force’ may have damaged that person? Do you know if this kind of ‘force’ caused that person to become suicidal or lead to a such decline in psychological functioning that they seriously harmed someone else as a result?

    Jonathan, neither you or I know the real answer to that question, but many of the narratives of survivors at MIA and elsewhere strongly indicate that this use of ‘force’ has caused great damage. Many authors of those narratives stories at MIA have made it clear that if they were ever threatened with ‘force’ again they would do just about anything to avoid and/or defend themselves against such a violation; some might even choose suicide or some form of violence as a desperate option. Survivors have survived. What about those who became so damaged (or eventually died) because of the past violations caused by ‘force’?

    Jonathan, I have called for the abolition of ‘force” in the mental health system; that is forced hospitalization and forced drugging (where no laws have been broken). I am anti-psychiatry, but I have NEVER called for the abolition of psychiatry. I believe if we abolish all oppressive forms of so-called “treatment” in the mental health system (which I believe requires major systemic changes throughout the entire society and will not happen in a profit based system) then psychiatry will slowly wither away; people will no longer have any use for it and eventually choose to go elsewhere for help.

    Jonathan, you said: “… a complete cessation of all aspects of psychiatry, which not only seems impossible, it doesn’t even seem desirable. There will always be people who seek out psychiatric drugs, even if it is in the tapering process. I don’t believe that should be abolished.”

    I have always been in favor of dissident psychiatrists being won over and persuaded to study the science of withdrawal and join with knowledgeable survivors and others to help all psychiatric survivors safely withdraw from these dangerous drugs.

    Jonathan, why wouldn’t it be desirable to have a world without psychiatrists and people wanting (or needing) psychiatric drugs? Wouldn’t it even be desirable to have a world where therapists were no longer necessary? If you believe that most all of what gets labeled as “mental illness” is trauma based within the environment (and I believe you do based on your past criticisms of biological determinism) than are you denying the possibility of human society reaching a point in history where the forms of trauma inherent in poverty, patriarchy, and class based inequalities could ever be surpassed within a more advanced equalitarian type society? Is today’s world the best that humanity can do? I think not.

    Yes, we can and must do better. And people standing up (and taking risks where necessary), in this current mental health system by opposing the use of ‘force’ will save some people from harm today and help all of us advance one more step on the road to a more just world in the future.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    There are approximately 50,000 psychiatrists in this country and I believe more than half are over 60 years old. Many of these people were trained prior to Biological Psychiatry becoming the dominant paradigm of so-called “treatment.” Many of these people still do therapy and minimize the use of psych drugs; some are helping people get off of these drugs.

    I am anti-psychiatry, but I believe it would be a big mistake not to attempt to win over some of the people practicing psychiatry to raise hell within their profession, oppose the use of all force, and seek ways to support people coming off of psych drugs. Some will be won over to a more radical approach if we educate and inspire them (especially by psych survivors) to do so.

    Outlawing or abolishing the profession of psychiatry would be an ultra left position that precludes a strategy of “uniting all who can be united.” The struggle to defeat Biological Psychiatry is part of a much bigger struggle to change the world that involves many different human rights struggles, and includes the struggle to save the planet from environmental destruction. We can’t afford to alienate intellectuals and other potential allies within the middle class if we are trying to isolate the 1% at the top of the pyramid.

    My reference to past revolutionary errors refers to my previously stated belief (in other blogs) that the future of Biological Psychiatry has become inseparable from the future of modern capitalism. The value of the pharmaceutical industry (especially the sales of psychiatric drugs) to the U.S. economy and the need to maintain social control of certain volatile sections of the U.S. population makes Biological Psychiatry indispensable to the power and control needs of the ruling classes.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Uprising

    Learning from the mistakes of past revolutions that mishandled contradictions among the people and ways of dealing with intellectuals and the middle class, it would be wrong to tell Dr. Dan Fisher or Dr. Sandra Steingard (and others) that they no longer have the right to be psychiatrists or they can’t attempt to help people through that profession.

    We should convince more psychiatrists to study the science of withdrawal and help the thousands of people trying to taper off of psychiatric drugs; this could be a valuable service to the masses.

    The Joseph Biederman’s and others who have caused enormous harm to people should be prosecuted for their crimes.

    After generations in the future have completed successful tapering from all psychiatric drugs and all harmful and coercive forms of “treatment” are outlawed and abolished, psychiatry as a profession will simply wither away because no one will have any use for it. Those formerly interested in it will find other more productive and helpful things to do with their life.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonah

    You are right to say that psychiatry should not be abolished. However, it IS correct to fight for the ABOLITION of all forms of coercive and harmful forms of so-called “treatment.”

    If we can successfully win these battles through protracted struggle then people will have no reason to use psychiatry any more. At that point in human history psychiatry as a ‘force’ in the world will simply wither away. It will then find its rightful place in history’s museum next to other ancient and oppressive entities. The sooner the better.

    BTW Jonah, don’t forget, please send me two locations (with the URLs) of your better posts advocating for the abolition of ‘force.’

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Daniel

    Interesting blog. After 21 years (still working) as a therapist/counselor in a community mental health clinic I would make the following comments:

    1) Whether working as a therapist or life coach in today’s world, if you don’t become educated about what is wrong with Biological Psychiatry and its complete takeover with the medical model you will not be able to offer much help to people and will probably end up harming them.

    2) Working both inside and outside the system is a daily battle to avoid allowing yourself to get stuck on the often deadly “path of least resistance.” That is a path that both follows and reinforces an oppressive status quo.

    3) Once educated about the criminal nature of Biological Psychiatry and its medical model you cannot help people or do positive work inside the system unless you are constantly pushing up against and challenging the status quo, and also taking calculated risks that may very well lead to you getting fired.

    4) Whether inside or outside the system if we do not take our knowledge of the crimes of Biological Psychiatry to the level of building and supporting mass direct action targeting the system, then we are limiting our effect on social change and foregoing our historical responsibilities as truly moral human beings.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonah

    Welcome back. I always appreciate your well thought out and articulated posts at MIA. This also includes your exposure of ECT above in your response to Sinead.

    I do believe some people can be very contradictory in their belief system; sometimes it is baffling but it frequently happens. Healy’s brilliance on his many exposures of Biological Psychiatry and then his terribly contradictory support for ECT. Peter Breggin’s courageous history representing a tiny minority exposing Biological Psychiatry and his horrific support (after 9/11) for extremist right wing radio personality Michael Savage.

    These type of contradictions will certainly raise my suspicions evaluating future positions held by these men, but I will always attempt to evaluate each position they take independently. I will try not to allow my political disagreements to color my scientific evaluations of their body of work.

    BTW, Jonah, please take a moment to review my comment on August 31, 2014 at 3:21PM in Joanna Moncrief’s recent blog on August 26 entitled “The Lessons of Ancient Philosophy.” Towards the end of my comment I address specific comments and questions to you; I am hoping you will respond. Thanks in advance

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sinead

    You have presented a powerful and scathing critique of the moral and political responsibility of those in the psychiatric profession, both historically and today. I cannot disagree with any major point you have made.

    Whitaker (Anatomy of an Epidemic) and others have detailed the symbiotic relationship between Big Pharma and the psychiatric profession, which was at its low point in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Both industries desperately needed each other (especially psychiatry) and both began to collude at the highest levels during that period, ultimately putting psychiatry on high doses of economic and political steroids as it grew exponentially in power and influence into today’s incarnation of Biological Psychiatry. Check out my previous blog series at MIA, especially Part 2 http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/07/biological-psychiatry-part-2-anatomy-power-control/ and Part 3 http://www.madinamerica.com/2014/07/biological-psychiatry-part-3-thoughts-hastening-demise/ These blogs get into very similar questions regarding the moral and political responsibility of modern psychiatry and what we can do about it.

    I would add a related point that I have made similar reference to in past discussions: I DON’T BELIEVE, IN TODAY’S WORLD, THAT SOMEONE CAN BE A TRULY EHTICAL SCIENTIST OR MEDICAL PRACTITIONER WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE FACT THAT WE LIVE IN A PROFIT BASED SYSTEM THAT INHERENTLY CORRUPTS BOTH PROFESSIONS.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Pat

    Thanks for your thoughtful response. It is not easy to participate here at MIA while also being connected to today’s mental health system. This is true even when you are coming at these questions from a critical perspective.

    I appreciate the fact that you did not respond defensively and remain open to hearing some very harsh criticisms regarding the state of psychiatry (including its crimes) and its very precarious future.

    We all have to carefully evaluate those who choose to become part of the critical psychiatry movement to examine both the content of their criticisms as well as their long term goals for psychiatry and the inevitable radical changes that are necessary.

    Your deconstructionist approach and partial challenge to the medical model is moving in the right direction. We must be aware that some in the critical psychiatry movement may have an agenda of “putting lipstick on a pig”; that is, making a few minor reforms to psychiatry to avoid its total collapse while preserving the essence of its authoritative power and overall position in society.

    I hope you will consider some of the suggestions I made regarding the very positive role some critical and dissident psychiatrists could be playing in the coming period; a role that goes well beyond theoretical challenges to the medical model.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Sinead

    Good to hear from you again at MIA. Thanks for the positive feedback.

    I agree that we too often let regular doctors off the hook when it comes to the peddling of psychiatric drugs. Very frequently after someone is suffering from prolonged use of Benzos or SSRI’s (prescribed by their PCP) they are referred to the community mental health system to deal with all the related iatrogenic problems. Then they are often exposed to additional mood stabilizers and neuroleptics which only adds to the damage done.

    All of these drugs (with their addictive properties and withdrawal syndromes)guarantee an unending stream of patients forced to return to their doctors on a regular basis. And for some, these regular doctor’s visits may now become in between periodic admissions to the psych wards of area hospitals. What a racquet this has become!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Pat

    You say: “… I believe that psychiatry has a future.” This may be more wishful thinking on your part than any type of firm belief based on historical necessity.

    I know it may be hard to imagine letting go of one’s professional identity, especially when so much personal ego, work, emotion, and economic stability is dependent on it. Please step back for a moment and take an objective look at what your profession has become and how much harm is being perpetrated by a sizeable percentage of those practicing it.

    Psychiatry at this point in history cannot be reformed or reworked in any way, shape or fashion to make it somehow useful to humanity in the long term. No kind of seismic shift, Ted William’s shift, or Hermeneutic shift can save it.

    To focus people on trying to salvage psychiatry at this moment in history is like asking people stuck in a burning building to stop and take some time to study the science of fire fighting before attempting to leave the building.

    With phrases such as: “…these approaches are simply inadequate…” it is clear that the essential message of this blog does not even approach grasping the gravity of the current crisis facing those people being harmed (and destined to be harmed) by the current paradigm of mental health “treatment.”

    Human psychological distress and out of the norm thoughts and behaviors are not “illnesses” and cannot be understood or helped with this kind of understanding. When you say “… and the specialized insights given to us in medical training…” what do you possibly mean here as it relates to helping people in a psychological crisis? This line of thinking still seems to have one foot firmly stuck in the oppressive medical model.

    Pat, I appreciate you and the critical psychiatry movement, but I don’t believe (given the current crisis that exists) that the main efforts of critical or dissident psychiatrists should be directed towards finding a way to salvage the profession by turning back the clock to a time when psychiatry was more focused on doing therapy than genetics, brain diseases, and psychopharmacology.

    As a working therapist in the community mental heath system, I am also hopeful that the role of therapy and therapists will very soon leave history’s stage as well.

    Yes, psychiatry may have a BRIEF future ahead (hopefully only measured by several decades) and there is some VERY POSITIVE WORK that dissident professionals could be doing in the coming period of time. For example:

    1) Study the science of psychiatric drug withdrawal and open clinics and/or private practices (working with knowledgeable survivors) that are focused on helping people with withdrawal problems and ways to minimize dependency on psychiatric drugs.

    2) Develop organized resistance and disruption of “business as usual” within all mainstream psychiatric organizations.

    3) Join with psychiatric survivors and other dissidents in the mental health system in various forms of direct action and educational actions targeting all aspects of Biological Psychiatry within our society.

    In the course of future battles ahead (which ultimately involves challenging the capitalist system itself from which Biological Psychiatry is now inseparable) there will evolve new ways to evaluate the role of current professional entities in the so-called “helping professions” to determine what will be useful for humanity going forward. We all have to dare to perhaps give up something to make this world a better place. “Dare to struggle, Dare to win.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    Thanks for responding. Very quickly before I head to work.

    I am coming at this from the perspective that there is an objective reality independent of each person’s own subjective interpretation of it.The person that believes they can live without eating is not completely in touch with a vitally important fact of reality.

    In other words. “I am, therefore I think.”

    Our interpretation of reality is subjective based on our particular experience and grasp of the laws of science. Some people’s experience and grasp of science helps them more closely approximate this independent reality that exists independent of us.

    The more consensus there is among people living together as to what this independent reality actually is and how it must be shaped to advance the interests of human society, the more just and humane that society will be.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Nijinsky

    This was so brilliantly stated:

    “To begin with, reality isn’t “consensual” illusions are. Such as the illusion that these “drugs” are at all treating a chemical imbalance that’s been proven to exist. In fact it’s ONLY illusions that need “consensus” in order to be believed, reality simply exists for what it is needing no consensus.”

    I’ve had major problems with the phrase “consensual reality.” (I hope Paris Williams is reading these comments) I was going to comment on the inherent problems with this terminology, but Nijinsky, you said what needed to be said a thousand times better than anything I could have come up with.

    We must remember that throughout history beliefs such as:

    “The world is flat.” “Black people are inferior.” “Homosexuality is a sin and a mental disorder.” “Abortion is murder.” Capitalism corresponds to human nature.” “Mental illness” is a brain disease.” Psychiatric drugs are magic bullets.” “Premarital sex, or any sex for pleasure is a sin.” “Disobeying your parents, or anyone in authority, is wrong and must be punished.” “The war in Vietnam is virtuous and must be supported.” “The war in Iraq is……………………” “and on and on.

    It is a fact that for many people it is there own (very rational) contradictions with accepted “consensual reality” that creates the very extreme cognitive, emotional, and moral dissonance that gives rise to the “symptoms” that get labeled as “mental illness.”

    Nijinsky, I hope you hang in there on this one; I always learn from your postings.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    Your work and fighting spirit is extremely valuable. I have passed on your writings to many people confused about the ADHD diagnosis.

    I have worked in a community mental health clinic for over 21 years and have challenged Biological Psychiatry and the medical model in many ways over that period. In the recent period I have passed on to leadership two major documents challenging prescribing patterns at my clinic and still (so far)have been essentially ignored. One can often feel alone and like a “voice in the wilderness.” But I do believe things are percolating beneath the surface and very soon, with more public forms of resistance, we will begin to see more visible signs of progress in our movement. Keep up The Good Fight; we need you!

    One secondary criticism I have of your writing is that you tend to downplay the existence of very problematic symptoms in children that end up being labeled as ADHD. All of these mislabeled symptoms are NOT just children being children with extra wild forms of energy.

    Very often some of these very out of control and troubling (and sometimes debilitating) symptoms represent an extreme reaction to the experience of trauma; either directly experienced or observed.

    For us to be taken seriously by parents and others we MUST ACKNOWLEDGE that these more extreme symptoms, or anxiety reactions to trauma, are a very real phenomena. Sleep disturbance caused by trauma experiences, and the related anxiety, can be a major source of the problems that get labeled as ADHD or Bipolar disorder. Of course compassionate help, NOT DANGEROUS DRUGS, is what is needed in these situations.

    I also believe that a subset of these problems are caused by sleep apnea (often related to large tonsils and adenoids), excessive use of media, pressure to be perfect, food allergies, and other environmental toxins.

    Yes, ADHD is a complete invention by Biological Psychiatry, but the excessive anxiety experienced by many young people in today’s world is very real and sometimes very dysfunctional, and we must find constructive and healthy ways to help children (and their parents and teachers) learn to manage and re-channel that energy.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Candreae

    Thank you for sharing your story and giving the readers here a little more understanding where you are coming from with your questions ands criticisms.

    Your own unique and painful journey seems to have led you to some recent progress and temporary stability, but this single story CANNOT be used to draw general or long term conclusions about positive outcomes taking prescribed stimulants, or provide any justification for accepting labels such as “Bipolar 1” or “ADHD.” Your story is still one in progress where the “jury is still out,” so to speak, on where all this will take you as the brain naturally attempts to adjust to the current mind altering drugs you are taking.

    The brain constantly seeks a state of homeostasis and has an inherent tendency to push back against external efforts to manipulate brain chemistry.

    I have worked in community mental health for over 21 years treating people with multiple kinds of addictions. Your brief narrative only tells me that you had a serious addiction to alcohol and related forms of mood swings that often accompany these sort of problems.

    I don’t know if you had childhood experiences that set you up to derive greater relief or pleasure from alcohol based on its ability to provide escape from underlying anxiety or an alternative form of stimulation. The symptoms that get labeled as “Bipolar” are “par for the course” for those repeatedly imbibing high amounts of the drug, ethyl alcohol. This is especially true for those that add cocaine to the mix, which as you probably know is a very common combination.

    I don’t accept the “disease concept” for either addictions or other more extreme psychological reactions to the environment that get labeled as “mental illness.” You can read a more in depth presentation of my position on these questions by reading some my published blogs at MIA (click on “writers” above and search for Richard D. Lewis).

    Ethyl alcohol also disturbs the dopamine system in the brain, sometimes increasing or enhancing its effects in certain parts of the brain, especially the reward centers. It does not surprise me that your affect would have been flat after prolonged misuse of alcohol and then suddenly adopting abstinence (I have assumed that you stopped drinking). This may explain why you experienced temporary benefits from drugs that also stimulated the dopamine system in the brain.

    There are other safer and more natural ways to help the brain and body restore and reestablish equilibrium without perturbing the dopaminergic and serotonergic homeostatic process. Time itself , of course, is necessary, but it requires patience and perhaps a high level of pain tolerance during the recovery phase. Exercise (walking and yoga …), healthy eating, certain supplements, and meditation are almost essential elements.

    The “attributes and sensations” you describe in your childhood that somehow make you different or unique from other children most likely have origins in your own unique environmental experiences and influences. They provide NO “proof” that you have a “disease” that universally proposes that stimulant and/or antidepressant drugs are any solution type of temporary or permanent solution for calming a stressful life in today’s world.

    Candreae, I appreciate you willingness to engage on this website where there is clearly a strong bias against accepting any kind of psychiatric label or the view that psychiatric drugs are some kind of solution to human distress.

    I must point out that we live in a culture of addiction, and it is a very short walk from a life abusing illegal drugs or alcohol and then impatiently looking for legal (mind altering) drugs prescribed by doctors as some kind of quick fix for problems that may have taken years to develop.

    If you review prior blogs on this website and continue to read MIA on a regular basis, I believe (with your openness and inquisitive desire for true knowledge) that you will have your mind blown wide open and eventually find substantive answers and solutions to some of your problems as you continue on your journey. Good skills! (luck will not be enough since there is no proof of its existence). If you stick around I am looking forward to observing your evolution at MIA.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Candreae

    You are placing the responsibility for proof in the wrong hands.

    If some one tells us that there is a purple zebra present in the room but it cannot be seen with the naked eye, it is NOT OUR responsibility to prove that the alleged purple zebra does not exist in the real world.

    The alleged existence of the purple zebra, in this case, is the equivalent of the alleged brain “disease” called ADHD. The onus for proof lies with Biological Psychiatry (and those that defend it) to justify the mass drugging of children and adults for a so-called disease that has no proof of existence.

    Difficulty focusing, concentrating, and being able to sit still for extended periods of time has many environmental explanations that have nothing to do with unproven “chemical imbalances” or so-called problems with brain structure.

    Direct trauma or observance of trauma, emotional neglect, food chemicals and other environmental toxins, as well as, just being a very active child or adult in a very stressful world, all have some direct connections to the symptoms that get labeled as ADHD.

    So Candreae, where is the definitive proof that ADHD exists? YOU SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!

    And as for the detrimental effects of the stimulant drugs being handed out like candy by psychiatrists and other doctors, just put in the words “ADHD drugs” in the search above or wait for some of the people here at MIA who have catalogued all these resources to provide you with the links. If you dare to do the research you will soon find out that you have been brain washed and/or perhaps harmed by Biological Psychiatry.

    One last question, are you a doctor?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • BTW, I wish to thank all those responsible for getting this article published in the Boston Globe.

    This is one of the best published articles that combines real science with personal stories of survivors fighting back and finding recovery solutions and alternatives. I have made copies of this article to pass out to my clients and other open minded people working within the system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob and Elocin

    Some additional questions to be raised on the issue of “addiction vs dependency”: Isn’t it the same doctors who are so quick to put people on these drugs that want to avoid the term “addiction” when their patients start to have the inevitable problems with withdrawal?

    Aren’t these same doctors the ones who want to refer to these problems as “dependency” issues because there is less liability and medical responsibility in using this description?

    Isn’t it the same shunning of responsibility that makes them avoid the word “withdrawal” with all the resulting problems from their over prescription of psychiatric drugs? Isn’t this the reason that they euphemistically refer to these problems as “tapering issues” or “withdrawal syndromes?”

    Biological Psychiatry has a great deal invested in avoiding any association of the words “addiction” and “withdrawal” connected to their prolific expansion of our culture of addiction.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bob and Elocin

    I have had problems with this distinction (addiction vs dependency) over the past 21 years I have been trying to help people overcome addiction problems while working in a community mental health setting. Bob, your agreement with Elocin is much too quick and the debate over this question is far from over.

    Yes, there absolutely does need to be a distinction made between addiction/dependency when it is forced onto or ignorantly imposed on unsuspecting people by this oppressive medical model promoted by Biological Psychiatry. But to artificially separate addiction from dependency has some inherent issues with definitions and with a problematic mind/body separation.

    For example, if some one was kidnapped for three months and forcibly shot up with heroin or forced to take Xanax three time a day they would clearly have problems (when rescued) with both physical and mental processes in seeking to withdraw and reach a state of total abstinence.

    Prolonged use of opiates commonly lowers a person’s pain/frustration tolerance level making them much more sensitive to both physical AND emotional (mind) discomfort. It would not fundamentally make a difference what circumstances (forced or otherwise) led to this state of addiction or dependency, many of the same physical symptoms would occur and very similar mind games would take place preceding the very difficult and inevitable temptations and choices regarding the use of pain drugs.

    Xanax (and all other benzodiazepine) addiction/dependency leads to a disturbance with gaba receptors in the brain. Over even short periods of time (2-4 weeks) of regular use can lead to serious problems for most people; making a person’s issues with anxiety more severe due to a heightened sensitivity to all types of stressors, and even experiencing intense anxiety when there is no perceived environmental stressor. Painful stories of these struggles with benzodiazepines have been quite numerous on MIA and throughout the Web. People’s battles, to even very slowly withdraw from Benzos obviously involve very intense physical and psychological processes to develop resilience in both areas of their being.

    I believe both categories of people (those who were forced into addiction/dependency by the medical establishment and those with a developed addiction by other means) would describe very similar physical and emotional (mind) battles to achieve a state of recovery and/or abstinence. And in reality aren’t those people who develop addictions by other means in many ways actually “forced” into addiction/dependency by traumatic and/or oppressive circumstances in their lives that makes relief from stress or various forms of escape (with the use of mind altering substances) more attractive.

    Bob and Elocin, the debate over the issue of addiction/dependency for me has not ended. There is not a simplistic distinction to be made between these two conditions; this issue deserves far more discussion and attention.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Copycat

    Great post. I completely agree about the connection between childhood drugging by psychiatry or pediatric doctors and later life addiction. Bad habits can start young; in this case forced on young children by the medical establishment.

    The reward pathways in the brain can be developed at an early age and it becomes like the “riding a bicycle” analogy when children experiment with other mind altering substance later on in life; they are simply “lubricating” already established pathways which have great potential for addiction to consume the unsuspecting youth. I have been doing addiction work with people (in community mental health) over 21 years and have heard these stories many times.

    Biological Psychiatry feeds off of and expands our culture of addiction; it is a very profitable business.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Madmom

    Your symptoms remind me of when I had Lyme disease several years ago, and it was not a fun experience; a bad headache is just one of the symptoms. I live in New England (Ma.) and we have a lot of ticks that carry this disease. Untreated Lyme disease can become a long term problem if not treated with antibiotics when the symptoms first appear. If you had a Lyme titer blood test today it might come back negative because not enough antibodies would have been mobilized yet to show up in the test. In a few weeks this test would be more accurate. Just a thought that you might consider on the medical side of things.

    Report comment

  • Joanna

    Great article that makes us think more deeply about history, and acknowledge some of the accomplishments of well known philosophers and thinkers and understand their limitations as well. I also believe that the Christian concepts of “sin” and “original sin” deserve more in depth analysis when understanding how “mental illness” has been understood within human society.

    I am so glad that you pointed out that many of these great philosophers lived in a class society where slavery and patriarchy were pervasive and accepted as a fact of life. Thomas Jefferson, I believe, owned (over many years) up to 600 slaves and made an enormous part of his income buying and selling human beings. His words and deeds, and what grew out of them, must be understood with these enormous limitations kept in mind. There would be no modern America without it being built on the backs of African slaves.

    Michael Fontaine’s article was also provocative and I learned from reading it. I believe he made an error in his contextual use of the word “failure” as many have pointed out. Just because certain ideas or movements are unable (at a particular historical moment) to bring down the “beast,” does not imply that they were a failure. Michael, however should NOT be criticized for merely attempting to critically analyze the role of Szasz or for attempting to point out some possible shortcomings. We all must take some risks in doing this if we are to learn from the past.

    Our current movement owes a great debt to Thomas Szasz; I am educated and provoked by every video I watch of him speaking and by reading his words. But our movement must ALSO be willing to make a deeply critical analysis of both his accomplishments and, yes, his failures. How else are we going to move forward if we don’t learn from past mistakes; we all make them.

    What follows are more questions I have about Szasz rather than any type of worked out analysis:
    1) Did Szasz’s uncritical views toward capitalism and his promotion of Libertarianism prevent him from uniting with the powerful movements of the 1960’s and thereby limit the ability of his penetrating critique of psychiatry from gaining much needed allies at such a crucial time in our history?
    2) Did his inability to seek out or make alliances with other social movements, especially those on the Left in the 60’s who were critically evaluating every aspect of American society, force him to pragmatically ally himself with Scientology and thereby push his political role more to the fringes and thus limit the political impact of his critique?
    3) Did Szasz’s failure to link his powerful critique of psychiatry and the entire therapeutic state to the development of modern capitalism, confine and limit his analysis from taking on the role of poverty in creating psychological distress and creating the material basis for more psychiatric labeling. And relatedly did this also restrain him from criticizing the profit hungry role of the pharmaceutical industry and its inseparable connection to the growth and expansion of Biological Psychiatry?

    These are questions I plan to investigate myself in future study. These questions are not meant to underplay his significance or imply that had Szarz allied himself with these movements mentioned above, that somehow psychiatry and the therapeutic state would now be dead and buried. I am only implying that we might be further along in our struggle if such unity had been developed, and therefore we need to learn and sum up why this did not happen.

    I am raising these points here in this thread because Michael Fontaine’s thread was so long that I was unable (with my computer) to get on to reply.

    Jonah,

    Thanks for the kind words in the last thread about my participation here at MIA. I would like to correct one word of your description of me. You lumped me in as a mental health “reformer.” I have repeated criticized “reformist” approaches in our movement. I believe this system must be totally dismantled. I am not opposed to reforms, but see reforms more coming out of the struggle for revolution, not the other way around.

    And also I have listened to that William Sax video you recommended, and despite being an atheist, I fully acknowledge the positive role that cultural rituals can have in helping people in more primitive societies deal with psychological distress. As he points out, they deal with it as a family or group problem, not an individual problem.

    BTW, your writing (I read it all) and participation at MIA continues to educate and move me. I like the way you blend your personal experience with deep philosophical and political discourse. And if your father wants to know if someone can be anti-psychiatry and against Scientology (I believe it is a dangerous cult) tell him to give me a call; I’ll vouch for you anytime.

    And finally, Jonah, I am writing something on the issue of force in psychiatry, could you please highlight (provide the MIA address) of a few of your best comments on this subject so I might note them in a future blog.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Mommyof3

    I agree with the points made by Uprising but I would add another point to consider. Some people are more sensitive to the effects of pot smoking and the mind altering drug that it contains, THC. You might want to discuss this issue with your son and show him some of the scientific articles that show a correlation between psychosis and pot use.

    Another issue to consider would be whether or not you son experienced trauma as a child. There is a connection between trauma and psychosis and it could be helpful for him to speak with a trustworthy therapist who works with trauma victims without pushing drugs; EMDR is one such therapy approach that can be helpful with trauma victims when he is ready to address those issues.

    I have worked with more than two dozen psychiatrists over the past twenty years and have ZERO trust in modern psychiatry. Your care and careful concern for your son shines through. Keep critically educating yourself and your son, and you will eventually find the right support and path for him.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Leah

    You said: “What I do believe is that if we all made human connection, safety, and a sense of shared belonging among our top priorities, if we all tried in ways large and small to end our collective isolation and suffering, this world would be a safer place to be human. And a lot of people might not be eager to leave so soon.”

    Today one of the most important ways for us to make the kind of human connection you are describing is by joining together in the common struggle to sweep into the dust bin of history Biological Psychiatry and all the material conditions in this world that give rise to the kind of alienation that ultimately snares people into its trap of disease labeling and psychiatric drugs.

    It has been truly sickening to watch the media coverage on channels, such as CNN, where the likes of Dr. Drew Pinsky and other so-called expert doctors repeat over and over the lie that depression is a brain disease caused by chemical imbalances, and then they push for more medical treatment. The APA and the pharmaceutical corporations couldn’t have scripted this coverage any better.

    We need more organized efforts to counter these lies and not allow the forces of oppression to use the creative brilliance and compassion of a life like Robin Williams as a disgusting form of advertisement for more of what Biological Psychiatry has to offer.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie

    Excellent exposure of the criminal nature of Biological Psychiatry.

    Soon they will be “repurposing” antidepressants for teenagers as a way to prevent premarital sex and discourage excessive focus on romantic forms of bonding.

    The collusion of modern psychiatry and Big Pharma seemingly knows no bounds in its attempt to transform human interaction into some form of exploitative commodity relationship.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Chrisreed

    I just want you to know that I find your story terrifying and inspirational at the same time. What a powerful story, and we probably have not heard but a small percentage of your narrative so far.

    I sincerely hope that you contribute more here at MIA and that you consider writing a more detailed memoir of your experiences within this oppressive mental health system; this could be extremely educational for many people out there.

    All the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • Stuart

    I applaud your efforts to help people deal with protracted withdrawal issues for SSRI related tardive dysphoria or tardive akathisia.

    I was one of the people who was quite critical of your last posting especially regarding some of the vagueness concerning your use of Benzos. I’m ready to move on from that and address some questions regarding some of the new experience you are summing up about this difficult problem.

    My main issue with the evidence presented about these case histories (above) is the very important information that is either left out or not gathered. I know that you cannot state everything in a single blog posting but how can we more deeply understand this problem without knowing the following information:

    1) Do you know (with reasonable certainty) if your patients are using other mind altering substances such as alcohol and pot etc. on a regular basis? And, if so, how does this substance use effect their presentation of distressful symptoms or perhaps weaken coping skills in the long run?

    2) Do you prescribe exercise, yoga, dietary changes, and meditation with the same IMPLIED authority and weight as you do the use of psychiatric drugs for help with these protracted problems?

    3)Would you challenge those patients who only took the drugs you prescribed but avoided your other prescriptive advice (exercise etc., if given)) with the same concern as if they avoided taking the drugs you recommended?

    4)Have the patients who have succeeded with fewer problems with withdrawal been those who have more consistently worked on the above mentioned coping mechanisms that involve both mental and physical skill building?

    5) Are some of the patients who have suffered relapses or prolonged symptoms more likely to have experienced trauma in their past and how might this be related to their difficulties when presented with new stressors or “triggers” within their environment. Do we need to focus more attention on trauma recovery (even trauma at the hands of psychiatry) as part of this work around helping people with withdrawal?

    6) Is it possible that the prolonged use of SSRI drugs lowers the frustration/tolerance level for enduring stress and requires extra work on the part past victims of these drugs to strengthen inner resilience and coping skills, especially those skills mentioned above and others? How can we create more favorable conditions for people to understand the value of these practices as we seek greater understanding of this problem?

    On the issue of Benzo use: I do not have a position that they should never be used, but I think it would be more on the very rare occasion. Certainly Benzo withdrawal, itself, is often protracted in most cases. I would always be concerned that new Benzo prescriptions could create a whole new set of problems and may prolong protracted withdrawal problems. The single case that you presented of the person who carefully took Xanax with some success to help her withdrawal would seem to be an extreme exception. Xanax is so effective in the short term that the path of least resistance would be for most people to keep taking them to relieve very uncomfortable symptoms; tolerance come quickly and so does dependence.

    Stuart, have you any experience, or do you know other doctors or patients who have had any success with protracted withdrawal from either SSRI’s or Benzos who have used Neurotin (gabapentum) as a temporary replacement and/or aid in hastening safe withdrawal?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Humanbeing

    You raise an important point of safety. If somehow you could connect up with similar minded activists in your area then you could collectively decide which people could be more public in their protesting and how everyone involved could be more supportive to those that have been labeled in the past.

    I remember reading a prior posting of yours about the difficulties you’ve had being able to connect with your children. This saddened me, for I have seen many examples in my work as a therapist in community mental health where psychiatry has played a role in ripping children away from their mothers, or seriously damaged their relationships. I hope you are receiving some support (legal, counseling, or friend) in addressing this problem.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I don’t use the term “mental illness” unless I put it in quotes or say something like “so-called “mental illness.”” When I used the term “genetic theories” above I kind of left it hanging without attaching what I was referencing; a lack of clarity on my part.

    There is no such thing as “mental illness” and the so-called genetic theories that have been posited to explain certain out of the norm human behaviors have never been proved, and are consistently flawed with some form of pseudoscientific reductionism.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonah

    Thanks for your detailed and passionate response. Your position on the use of force in psychiatry is comprehensive and filled with a narrative that backs up each and every point in the most personal and political ways.

    I believe we can win over people like Jonathan Keyes to eventually oppose the kind of force you write so strongly about. I will do my best to accomplish this goal in future struggles here at MIA and beyond. I hope to visit with you in October if you decide to go to the film festival.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Someone Else

    You raise some important points.

    I am familiar with your narrative here at MIA and your righteous outrage at the level of sexual abuse in this country (and the world) and the denial and cover-up that goes on by major institutions in power.

    Patriarchy, which pervades our society, leads to the subjugation of both women and children. Working in community mental health for so many years I hear so many stories about sexual trauma, and know first hand that these experiences are a major source of all the “symptoms” that end up being labeled as “mental illness.”

    Patriarchy, together with all the all harm it creates, is fertile ground for Biological Psychiatry and Big Pharma to exploit potential victims. Women receive 70% of all Electro-shock and are drugged with Benzos and SSRI’s at much higher levels than men. As more survivors emerge from this pool of victims, the fury of women will become a mighty force for revolutionary change. We have to help make this a reality.

    Your comments about “too big to fail” and democracy existing only for the rich are spot-on. I believe it’s too late to expect any new law to somehow limit corporate power or break up the monopolies. The politicians are in bed with corporate America. Why would the fox want to eliminate or even limit his ability to break into the chicken coop?

    Most libertarians seem to worship at the alter of free market capitalism, as if this represents one of the highest forms of human freedom. They criticize “crony capitalism” and want to return to a pre-monopoly stage of capitalism. History has gone way beyond this possibility. The one percent in power are not going to allow this to happen; their wealth and ability to control our society depend on this political and economic arrangement. Biological Psychiatry, with their focus on genetic theories and their ability to drug away potential dissent in society, also plays a crucial role in maintaining this oppressive status quo.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Pencilect

    You raise some interesting points. I agree that the word “evil,” as Uprising has also pointed out, has some specific meaning apart from its religious connections. However, when you say that “those who commit heinous crimes are simply evil…” what are the deeper implications of such a statement? I think I sort of know what you mean by this statement, but I can’t be sure, and I can’t be sure how others might interpret such a statement.

    Was the person born that way? Have they been taken over by demonic spirits or influenced by the “Devil?” When people start to make overly simplistic statements or permanent labels for people who do “evil” things in the world, it tends to divorce these questions from a deeper understanding of what it is within human society (in this Historical era) that gives rise to such behaviors.

    Ted Bundy and Joseph Biederman were MADE that way, not born that way. Psychiatry, and today’s incarnation of Biological Psychiatry, has a specific trajectory of historical growth which gives it a clear purpose and reason for existence in today’s world.

    We, here at MIA, know that this causes great harm to people, but in a society where some classes of people can benefit economically and politically by subjugating and living off the misery of others, they have created their own moral justification for such divisions in the world.

    The better we understand (in a very deep way) how these horrible things in the world came to be, the better we can prepare ourselves to usher in a new era in history where people are, not only, not allowed to commit these crimes, but it never even arises in their consciousness to behave that way. A long way off, yes, but we have to do our part to move closer to when that might be possible.

    You are so right with your statement about how a little bit of drugs (that might temporarily relieve someone’s suffering) gets their foot in the door. I have worked 21 years in community mental health and have observe this phenomena on a daily basis. It is maddening to watch as people get sucked into this system in this way.

    Pencilect, I tend to avoid calling psychiatry a religion. Again, I think I know what you mean, but I much prefer making reference to it as pseudoscience justifying institutional oppression.

    Thanks for the feedback. Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    I would add this point. You implied in your comment that I would somehow want to censor you or other people for their religious beliefs or that I would want to bar (from MIA) a person such as the new blogger, Rev Epperson. What have I ever said that would give you that impression? Nothing could be further from the truth.

    I found Rev Epperson’s blog to be a very good addition to MIA with many powerful arguments. I would have to reread it to decide if I had any points to quibble with. Unitarians are not literalists when it comes to the Bible, so their references to “evil” or “Satan” are most likely metaphors or allegorical in nature. If I sat down with Rev. Epperson I think we would might agree on whether or not “evil” is a permanent construct in human society.

    Donna, you are one of the most prolific, well read, and insightful critics of psychiatric abuse at MIA. I believe that when you occasionally resort to terminology such as “evil” and “Satanic” to describe psychiatry, that you weaken your overall critique, and this opens an easy door for outside critics and defenders of the system to attack us. I believe it is fair to have a discussion about this kind of language when discussing strategy and tactics.

    This has nothing to do with my being critical of religion, and in no way am I trying to discourage people from sharing how their spirituality is a source of strength in their lives or how it motivates them to fight psychiatric abuse. I have complete respect for that part of a person’s life. My own sense of spirituality is not religious, but more involved with human connection in the struggle to advance the cause of human progress and moral growth on earth. I hopes this clarifies more of my position on these matters.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonah

    Thanks for the feedback. You know we share the same views on the issue of force. My quibble with you has been your use of the term “enemy” to describe defenders of force in very extreme circumstances.

    I noticed in this comment you soften that a bit by using the term “potential enemy.” And you are also displaying a willingness to forgive those who may have mistakenly used force and unknowingly harmed someone (mainly out of ignorance). I am glad that you are willing to discuss freely and openly the use of these terms as a legitimate and valuable area of discussion.

    Specifically, I hope you can come up with a better term (than “enemy”) to describe a person like Jonathan Keyes who blogs here and with whom you have had sharp disagreements on the issue of force. You and he have too many political positions in common to resort to such a term as “enemy.” I think the use of “enemy” here seriously muddies the waters. Joseph Bierderman as an enemy, yes; Jonathan Keyes, please no.

    I will break bread with Jonathan Keyes any day of the week, and we will have very interesting and perhaps sharp discussion and debate on the issue of the limited use of force, and on whether or not psychiatry can or should be reformed. Jonah, I think you could do the same. Let’s all get together at the MIA film festival in October and maybe we can reach a higher level of unity on these key questions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Where have I talked about “criminalizing” sex workers? The women are the main victims in this situation.

    My original point was that prostitution is overall oppressive to women and it should not be legalized in a truly equalitarian society. Do you think otherwise?

    This came up in a discussion about people who have taken “freedom of choice” to extremes. This is when I brought up the analogy to prostitution.

    Ect, by similar example, should also not be legal, because enough evidence exists that it is overall harmful to people.

    The same is true related to prostitution for both women and men. For women (who are the major victims of such a practice) its very existence denotes an oppressive status level in society where one person with lessor status is forced to sell their services to another in a overall demeaning and degrading fashion.

    It is clearly the role of a truly representative government (one in which we do not have at this time) to decide if such practices such as ECT or prostitution should be legal.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    I never mentioned a word about religion or spirituality in my blog. I don’t believe I have EVER attacked or ridiculed people at MIA for having religious beliefs. If you can find such a prior comment at MIA than I will review it and criticize it if it indeed was disrespectful in any way. Religion should never be made a dividing line within our movement, nor should atheism. Previous comments I have made on the subject of religion have usually been when people have ridiculed or attacked atheism, or equated atheism with the crimes of psychiatry.

    Yes, it is true that the words “evil” and “demon” are clearly associated with religious belief systems, but their use here at MIA are frequently thrown about by some people outside of a religious context. I don’t think the use of these concepts are helpful to our movement and I have attempted to explain why. This does not represent, nor was it intended to represent, an attack on religion, or a person’s spiritual belief system.

    “Demon” and “evil” imply the aprioristic or eternal existence of such forces of extreme bad in the world. I don’t believe that people are born bad or born to do “evil” things, nor do I believe that there necessarily will always be people that will intentionally harm other human beings. I believe humanity can learn to rise above this level of behavior; even if it might take thousands of years to achieve.

    In the same way I do not believe people are born with genetic defects that create the thoughts and behaviors that get labeled as “mental illness.” It is the leaders of modern psychiatry who describe human nature and human psychological distress in determinist terms related to innate genetics divorced from the material conditions that gives rise to one’s very malleable human nature. There is certainly enough material evidence in a world filled with daily traumas and inequality to explain how human distress can rise to a level of psychosis, or in some cases extreme forms of criminal behavior by one human being against another.

    Yes, I have made reference to “genetic theories of original sin” when referring to the theoretical and practical approach of Biological Psychiatry, which, BTW, is a phrase first adopted by the famous sociologist, Ashley Montagu to describe the Sociobiologist; theorists in the 60’s who were the clear predecessors of today’s biological determinists. Yes, I do believe the concept of “original sin” as it has common characteristics to genetic determinism, can be harmful to some people and is worth evaluating in the context of critically evaluating Biological Psychiatry. This does not mean I am attacking religion or someone’s spiritual beliefs by raising these questions. The same would be true if we had a discussion or debate about whether or not “free will” exists in this world, and how one perspective or another on this question might be harmful to people.

    Donna, I am sorry that you took offense to my raising critical appraisal of the particular use of certain terminology. I have discussed religion with you in other contexts, as you know, and I thought those discussions were always a respectful exchange of ideas. And I plan to continue that approach.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You are correct that there is no degree in “Biological” psychiatry. However, a biologically based genetic/ disease/ drug centered medical model is the essence of what defines today’s dominant trend in psychiatry , frequently called and referred to as Biological Psychiatry.

    Making reference to Biological Psychiatry only illuminates it recent theoretical and practical evolution. It SHOULD NOT be meant to discourage criticism of psychiatry as a profession or imply that there is some wing of psychiatry that is somehow not based on faulty and oppressive premises.

    In my next blog submission (written, but waiting to be put up) I will self criticize my prior formulation that promoted a view that being “anti-Biological Psychiatry” was somehow more appropriate and correct than being “anti-psychiatry.”

    To the extent that I was discouraging an “anti-psychiatry” position with that particular formulation, I was clearly wrong. I will elaborate more on the reasoning behind my change in thinking in Part 3, hopefully it will go up soon. And I want to thank those who have given me critical feedback in past discussions.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • E. Lie Silly

    Why is it so hard to envision a world where people no longer sell themselves for sex? Can you envision a world where people are no longer labeled with a so-called “mental illness” or forced into oppressive forms of “treatment.”

    Clearly the existence of such practices arise out of conditions of unequal class status and unequal production and distribution of the necessities of life. Just as slavery is almost a thing of the past, so too will the existence of class oppression, in all its forms, become an historical relic if we do the work that history demands of us.

    It is the defenders of the status quo who try to convince us that that human nature is static and somehow of a permanent character; nothing is further from the truth.

    BTW, I find your critique of Scientology to be spot on – please keep writing on that subject as the need presents itself.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Francesca

    I don’t care if someone calls themselves a so-called feminist and claims that somehow prostitution is “liberating,” is it not, in the real world, oppressive to both women and men?

    Do YOU support the legalization of prostitution?

    Do you believe that once something is made legal that therefore it should always be legally available to those that choose it no matter how dangerous or oppressive this practice is found to be?

    Was it wrong for the drug, thalidomide, to be removed from the market place?

    Are some people being denied their right to choose to take this drug by an oppressive government?

    Do you think it is wrong for government to force white business owners to serve Black people even if they somehow decide they would rather not serve Black people?

    Are some white business owners being denied their right to serve whomever they want in their own businesses?

    Francesca, your logic on “freedom of choice” and “informed consent” is almost beyond credibility and making it hard for me to take you serious anymore.

    Are you ever wrong on some of the positions you take at MIA?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bonnie and Jonah

    Bonnie, great article . I will soon post on a similar theme in Part 3 of my blog on Biological Psychiatry.

    Jonah, great exposure on the true nature of ECT.

    Another point to consider here is that ECT has been proven to damage one’s memory. Resilience is part of a person’s memory, or one might also say, memory is a part of a person’s resilience. Destroy memory and you destroy resilience. Destroy resilience and you may destroy a person’s will to live.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Francesca

    You are taking the concept of individual liberty to ridiculous extremes. So according to your view prostitution should be legal if women want to choose to sell themselves to men. We should view it only as a matter of “individual choice” despite the fact that the practice of prostitution is oppressive to all women, and actually oppressive to men in the final analysis.

    Where is the role of government in your concept of society? I am not talking about the current government that we have, but your concept of a more ideal government.

    It would be the responsibility of a truly representative government, of the people and for the people, to outlaw any practice that is clearly oppressive to the people. This occasionally happens today with certain drugs, such as for MS, that help some people but cause enough serious life threatening effects to warrant taking the drug off the market. Unfortunately they have not applied such standards to psychiatric drugs; nor will they ( in my view ) under the current economic and political system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Jonah

    I stand by my comment regarding Scientology and cults. While you are correct that there are some cult like characteristics to psychiatry and NAMI, I don’t think they fit the entire definition of a full fledged cult. Nor do they need to fit that definition in order for me or others to want them to leave history’s stage as soon as historically possible.

    Among psychiatrists there is a whole range of individuals from the most extreme Biological Psychiatrists to The Critical Psychiatry Network. As far as I know, if someone leaves the psychiatric profession or NAMI they are not hounded, stalked, intimidated, and harassed with extreme forms of mind and behavior control; at least not yet, anyways.

    Jonah, I did appreciate your source material and the overall critical approach you are taking.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    I completely agree with your point about not accepting your political foe’s (in this case, psychiatry’s) attempt to avoid criticism by diverting attention away from their crimes by using some kind of “guilt by association” ruse.

    Especially since the 1950’s there have been similar historical examples of “redbaiting” anyone critical of capitalism or anyone taking a leftist political position critical of the American government. These types of political attacks must be opposed and exposed.

    However, Steve, when you have defended your position on this issue in this particular blog discussion and in previous related discussions, you have ALSO raised the issue of religious bigotry related to Scientology. It is around this point that I have raised my criticism of PART of your position.

    If one views Scientology as a dangerous cult that does serious harm to its members, and especially makes it extremely difficult for people to leave their organization (according to numerous personal accounts by former members), then it makes sense for MIA to not want such an organization having open access to promote its views on this public website. Such an organization could use MIA as a public forum to promote its own backward agenda and recruit members into its nefarious clutches.

    To the extent that I understand what MIA’s standards for publication and related code of ethics are, I am convinced that Scientology could not meet that standard. It is for this reason that I support their decision to bar Scientology and its front group CCHR.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    You have repeatedly stated on this website that the issue of distancing or detaching oneself (or in this case, MIA) from Scientology and CCHR is a form of bigotry and against religious freedom. Nothing could be further from the truth! We agree on most issues, but on this one you have not done your homework regarding an evaluation of the true nature of Scientology.

    Please research some of the key distinguishing signs that denote how an organization can come to be defined as a cult. If you compare those key distinguishing signs with some of the first hand accounts and stories of those people who have left Scientology, you will no longer mistake this organization as a religion.

    MIA’s decision to completely separate itself from Scientology and CCHR was one its most important initial strategic positions that helped guarantee its continued growth and expansion of influence in critiquing today’s mental health system.

    I personally would not blog here or invest my time in promoting this website if it was in ANY way connected to Scientology or any other cult like organization. I believe I am not the only blogger here who feels this way.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Most of what I know about drugs that are bought in the street has been taught to me by some of the people I see in counseling; many have active addiction problems.

    Unfortunately a lot of these people are primed by their experiences in this culture (with the help of pharmaceutical marketing) to be looking for a legal drug substitute when they get strung out on illegal drugs. I do the best I can to keep them away from any psychiatrists.

    Yes, you are right about the drug industry fighting against safer alternatives and discouraging people away from natural supplements. I don’t know too much about good supplements, but I do know some people have had some success taking melatonin for sleep. Apparently this is a natural hormone that is at higher levels in the human body at night and can be purchased very cheaply in any pharmacy. It is certainly much safer than all the sleep drugs pumped out by psychiatrists that are addictive and usually make sleep problems worse in the long run. BTW, please (everyone) don’t take melatonin without reading up on it and getting some expert advice, because it can have interactions with other drugs such as Benzos.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Fiachra

    Thanks for the feedback.

    You are right about the jails. It use to be that they would deny psych drugs to prisoners because they did not care if the prisoners were uncomfortable (usually with withdrawal) as an additional form of punishment. But after they discovered how these drugs can be used as a means for social control, they are now more than happy to have psychiatrists freely prescribe in the prison industrial complex.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I am glad you added the point in question 2 about how psychiatric labeling is internalized by people and the damage that follows from this. I think it is implied by the more general term of genetic/diseased based theories, but it certainly needs to be stated emphatically as you have done.

    As to question 4, I am also glad you added the point about the use of illegal drugs being use during the 60’s as a way to stifle rebellion. It has been stated before, that during the urban rebellions in the large cities in this country after MLK was assassinated, that large quantities of heroin were readily available in the ghettos, and no effort was made to stem this tide for obvious reasons.

    You said: “Psychiatric drugs so far have at least one drawback — nobody likes them.”

    Unfortunately, this is not completely true. Of course Benzos (94 million prescriptions a year) are hugely popular throughout all income levels and also in the street, and over 30% of all people who die from opiate overdoses have Benzos in their system. This category of drug is handed out like candy in the community mental health system, and it is almost a guarantee that the person receiving the prescription will be returning to the psychiatrist for more drugs; usually combined with other categories of drugs.

    Antidepressants also usually keep bringing back people to their shrinks because of their addictive nature with bad withdrawal symptoms. People are sometimes fooled into thinking they like them (spellbinding effect) because they have suffered when trying to get off of them; a very reluctant form of addiction.

    And believe it or not, Seroquel (as a major tranquilizer) is somewhat popular in the street because of its sedative qualities. People use it to combat intense stress and as a sleep aid in the midst of their chaotic lifestyles. And finally, Neurontin has also become popular, of late, as a another sedative drug that can substitute for Benzos when they are not available.

    I am afraid that in our growing culture of addiction there is no longer even a fine line between legal and illegal drug pushing and legal and illegal drug consumption. Modern psychiatry has conveniently seized upon and expanded this problem. This has all become so deeply entrenched in our system and culture that I believe major systemic changes will be required for this to begin to change.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I am NOT presenting a view that there is a more benign form of psychiatry; this is not my position. I am only doing my best to try an analyze the recent evolution of psychiatry into something even more powerful and oppressive in today’s world; something that this system appears to need for its own survival. Today’s psychiatry (Biological Psychiatry) and modern capitalism seem to have a mutual interdependence propping up each other’s existence and survival. I hope you think that is a point worth exploring at MIA.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising

    Thanks for the positive comments. Again, as I detailed in the history discussed in Part 1, I did not make up the term Biological Psychiatry. They (the early leaders of this trend) chose this name in the 50’s to describe their attachment to psychiatry of genetic based theories of “mental illness” as a way to promote “biological” solutions (drugs, Electro-shock, etc.) to what they wanted to promote as “biological” problems (inherent brain based diseases). They could care less about environmental/societal causation.

    In this sense the name fits them well, and they can have it. I choose to capitalize Biological Psychiatry, just as I would capitalize Nazism and Zionism. It has become a significant enough of an historical trend (on the negative side) to warrant this attention.

    Don’t forget, in the 1960’s there was the rise of the “Socio-biologists” like Konrad Lorenz of “Naked Ape” fame. This was a related trend that developed as a counter point to the movement of the 60’s. They used all kinds of pseudo science to attempt to prove that war, violence, and greed were inevitable (genetic)outgrowths of human nature by drawing direct connections to the social life of other primates.

    This was a way for the ruling classes and their right wing supporters to justify imperialist war and capitalist exploitation (as the natural order of things) and label all the 60’s activists as hopeless dreamers and utopians. Here again the name “Socio-biology” does not make complete sense when just looking at the particular words themselves, but history has its own way of choosing names that is out of our control.

    Uprising, I think the word “monopoly” added to capitalism is an accurate description of its evolution as a system; just as “imperialism” being the highest stage of capitalism, also has some important meaning. This is especially true as capitalism, with its own internal laws of expansion, needed to spread markets around the world to maximize profits. Therefore empires developed and different imperialists blocs of countries formed to compete for natural resources and cheap labor. This is a much more accurate explanation for the existence of modern war than some of their genetic theories.

    Many people on the right, including most libertarians, worship at the alter of free market capitalism as an example of the highest form of individual freedom. They like to ignore the fact that we live in a “monopoly” capitalist system which only allows the one percent of the most powerful property/industrial owners to dominate the entire system, squeezing out the smaller entrepreneurs and other innovators. They would like to turn back the clock to a previous era when there was more open competition. This will not, and cannot happen at this point in history. Just as some older psychiatrist might like to return the to the days before the pharmacological (counter) revolution took over their profession. Ain’t gonna happen.

    Thanks for your comments and your other insights throughout the comment section of MIA.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    I think maybe your reading something into my comment that is not there. First off, I hope you felt that the essence of my overall point in addressing Copycat was important and worth taking on.

    I look forward to the day when both psychiatry and all other components of the therapeutic state (including the professional counseling I do) can leave history’s stage; the sooner the better. We may have some differences (I’m not sure yet) about strategy and tactics in achieving that goal.

    I believe we can have “programmatic” unity on certain issues at certain times with some psychiatrists, and there is value in attempting to seek such unity in a protracted struggle to dismantle the entire mental health system. (I plan to address this as a side point in Part 2 of my coming blog). And I do not separate the struggle to end psychiatric abuse, in all its forms, from the broader struggle to end all class oppression and all forms of human exploitation.

    And yes, you are correct to say that there is not, nor can there be, a more “scientific” form of psychiatry. The ideological and theoretical foundations of psychiatry can not be scientifically substantiated, and never will be, in my opinion. My emphasis on “genuine” science in my comment was addressing those who would promote creationism or superstition to supplant theories of evolution and other important scientific theories; scientific theories that we can use as important weapons in our battle to end all psychiatric abuse.

    Oldhead, notice I got through a whole comment without using the word “biological.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Copycat

    Based on what you are proposing I guess we all should just declare that psychiatry is really a creation of the “Devil.” This will end all debate on the true nature of psychiatry. We can now joyously announce that all theoretical, scientific, political, and moral struggle on these questions to be officially over. Our work is done!!! Brilliant!!!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Copycat

    I would bet that the vast majority of the most oppressive psychiatrists are very much church going believers in God.

    Biological Psychiatry is PSEUDO science not GENUINE science. Genuine science is our friend in this battle.

    Genetic theories of so-called “mental illness” are quite similar to religious theories of “original sin.”

    What’s wrong with evolutionary theory? Psychiatric theory actually runs counter to theories of evolution.

    Extreme forms of psychological distress are actually “normal” human reactions to “abnormal” conditions of life. What gets labeled as “mental illness” is actually necessary (natural) coping mechanisms that have developed over thousands of years in the human species in response to severe stress in life. Psychiatry likes to label all this as genetic defects and brain diseases with NO scientific proof or understanding of evolution.

    Copycat, most of your resource postings are very good; this one was just right wing nonsense.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    Thanks for the reply.

    I say when you make “reform” the “goal” of your work then you are leading people to believe that the system they are living under only needs some tweaking to make it better, not that it is fundamentally flawed from the outset.

    When you unite people around a reformist type strategy and program you are setting people up to become demoralized when they constantly see the system derail their struggle into various dead ends and very limited freedoms.

    Safe alternatives to this system should be fought for, but this system has historically isolated, attacked, crushed , or coopted these parallel systems. So creating parallel systems should struggled for but NOT be the central part of out struggle. We need more direct action hitting at this system of psychiatric abuse combined with the type of ideological assaults that are made at MIA and elsewhere. All this needs to link up with other human rights battles throughout the planet.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steve

    Yours is a powerful example of the limits of reform in this system.

    I work with a prescriber who has read “Anatomy of an Epidemic” and she said she agrees with most of it. But with the intense gravity of the status quo and how it influences “the path of least resistance” in community mental health, this ultimately leads to a tremendous pressure (including demands from the clients) to “relieve suffering” with more drugs. Mere reforms is not going to change this.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    You have just presented the most articulated presentation I have read here at MIA for why you think the mental health system can and should be “reformed.”

    “Reformed” into what. Every reform you mention still ultimately retains oppressive power relationships ( psychiatry, therapy and other so-called”mental health” experts) and of course all the mind numbing psychiatric drugs.

    Why do you say psychiatry can never leave history’s stage? Do you believe there always will be, or has to be class distinctions and related forms of oppression in the world? Where is your imagination? Are human beings inherently greedy and violent, and forever needing other powerful classes lording over them? Is capitalism the highest achievement of human organization?

    Psychiatry, or as I say, Biological Psychiatry, is not dead, or about to fall under it own weight. It remains very powerful and an increasingly necessary part of this system’s economic growth and means of controlling volatile sections of society. Neither psychiatry (and its related mental health system) and the economic and political system system that gave rise to it and depends on it (as a means of social control), can be reformed.

    Should we fight for reforms, yes. But fighting for reforms will not lead to a revolutionary change. It will end up reinforcing the status quo. It should be actually viewed the other way around. Genuine reforms will only grow out of the struggle for revolution. And in this case it means a complete dismantling of the current mental health system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonah

    I apologize for using the wrong name this morning in addressing you.

    On the question of the name Biological Psychiatry: Our job is not to find new names for what history has already chosen. I only attempted to explain its origins, and why it makes perfect sense in the context of those who believe biological causation demands biological treatment.

    I am sure there are many people who find the name “Zionism” to be an inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete descriptive name for the movement that lead to the creation of a Jewish State. At this point in history there is no longer a debate or any need to argue about the name.

    Jonah, as to the major points I have tried to make in my blog – to the extent that you are not clear on what I stand for – I will accept blame for not clearly explaining myself.

    My political goals are for the elimination of all forms of exploitation and oppression that are part of class society in this historical era. Until we get beyond a profit based economic system we will be plagued with the multiple forms of physical and psychological violence in the world.

    I envision a world in the future without psychiatry, therapy, or any other type of power relationship over other human beings. I want to take part in a movement that will bring us closer to that goal.

    I see the battle against Biological Psychiatry as part of a key human right struggle leading toward the broader goals expressed above. While we need to unite people around these long term goals where we can, we also need to “unite all who can be united” more PROGRAMATICALLY with those who are not quite ready to accept those broader goals, but in this our case, they may want to fight psychiatric abuses.

    It is in this context that I am raising the possibility of uniting with some psychiatrists who may not be ready to see psychiatry go out of existence but will fight against psychiatric abuse. All successful liberation movements have employed such strategies.

    So concretely, in your case, how could you, Jonah, find a way to unite (on some level) with Dr. Philip Thomas, for example. He is a member of the Critical Psychiatry Network which is very critical of the Biological Psychiatry trend, but he still clings to a position that says in certain extreme situations sedative drugs may be forcefully needed to restrain some one. This is also the position of Jonathan Keyes who also blogs here.

    You have raised principled struggle with both of these individuals on this question; I learned from that debate.

    Question: Do you think it is helpful or will lead to more opportunities to use persuasion to win over these people, to label them as your enemy? I believe you stated, the other day, that anyone who holds such an outlook, or is in a position to enforce such an act, is your enemy. Correct me if I am wrong.

    These are important strategic and tactical questions that could mean the difference between winning and losing important battles within our movement.

    And BTW, I believe about a year or two ago (in some comment) you praised me for providing a similar definition of Biological Psychiatry that is contained in this blog. No one here has actually disputed the history that I have uncovered as to the origins of this name.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    You said: “Richard has sincerely attempted, with his blog post (above), to create an iron clad (very strong) argument, in favor of this notion, that: There are two quite separate and distinct classes, of psychiatrist (or, two very different schools of thought in psychiatry), and he has not proven his point…”

    Yes, you have mischaracterized my position. I do not believe there are two distinct classes or different schools of thought in psychiatry, as if there is one that is good and the other bad.

    I believe Biological Psychiatry is the clear dominant and overriding trend in psychiatry. To not recognize the significance of these changes in psychiatry over the past several decades is to underestimate what we are up against.

    When the sale of a single drug, Abilify, grosses more income than Google in a single year then this is clearly not your mother’s or grandmother’s psychiatry anymore.

    So there is the dominant trend of Biological Psychiatry and an eclectic hodgepodge of theories and practice in the rest, including some clearly “critical psychiatry” elements; some who write at MIA.

    We need to know what we are up against and how to approach people based on how they come at these questions. Some people within psychiatry can be won over to stand against psychiatric oppression, including all forms of forced treatment. Is it not worth the effort to unite with some of these people? Isn’t possible they can be a force for change?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Stephen

    I will not call you an extremist, but I will say that part of your comment above is terribly misguided and I hope at some point you will retract it. You know that I have been very supportive of your positions here at MIA, but this one wreaks of revenge and a form of “demonizing” and alienating potential allies.

    I understand your anger based on your narrative and daily frustrations witnessing abuse within the system. I have worked with more than two dozen psychiatrists over 20 years and I know it can be almost intolerable to see how entrenched many of them are in this current paradigm of so-called “treatment.”
    I am very angry too, but I would never make a statement such as yours below.

    You said: “Their treatment is no cure at all and all they do is tranquilize people rather than help them to actually deal with and transcend their issues. SO, I’M ALL FOR ALL OF THEM DISAPPEARING OVERNIGHT. So, I guess I’ll get called an extremist but so be it.”

    So you mean that even those psychiatrists such as Peter Breggin, Dan Fisher, Peter Stastny, Sandra Steingard, Philip Thomas (from the Critical Psychiatry Network) to name a few, and perhaps hundreds, if not several thousand more, who do far more good with people than any kind of harm, should all disappear from the earth over night? Disappear or maybe even die? Really!!

    What about all the people who are depending on them, perhaps in very acute conditions, because of the harm cause by trauma or by other harmful psychiatric treatment. So you want all those people to be suddenly abandoned, or perhaps the thousands of others that they could potentially help within their lifetimes?

    Some of these people you want “disappeared” are basically good human beings do good things to help people; some might even be activists now or later trying to change the world for the better. So to get rid of the bad psychiatrists you want to deny the world the experiences of the good ones?

    Your comment is way off; think about it some more before responding.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Eugene

    Your comments about the “therapeutic state” are very powerful and I agree with them. In Part 2 of this blog I plan to address this issue. I, too, envision a world without psychiatrists, therapists, or other similar professionals because of the power relationships you mention.

    I choose not to leave my job as a therapist at this time because I believe I can still play an overall positive role in this position, especially with the help of critical guidance from those working on the outside.

    Even though I believe therapy must, and will, go out of existence at some point in the future, I believe it would be incorrect for me (or our movement) to promote an “anti-therapy” position and attempt to organize people around it. Many therapists can be won over to a movement opposing Biological Psychiatry and I would not be in favor of creating any barriers for this to happen.

    I also believe human society will someday be able to create a world without violence and war. We should try to win over others to this type of outlook. However I would not, in today’s class structured world, state a position that I am against all wars. In this historical era there are both “unjust” and “just” wars and there will be for some time to come. There is no way we can avoid this by skipping stages in history.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    You stated that: “There is simply no basis for unity until psychiatrists recognize that their field is based on a big fat deliberate lie.”

    Some psychiatrists, especially those in the older generation who were trained several decades ago, might be very open to that characterization, or others could be won over to that position. Should we tell them to dropped their medical degree and leave psychiatry before they can step foot in our movement? Would they want to join us if we publicly declare ourselves to be “anti-psychiatry” and declare ALL of psychiatry to be “evil?”

    You said: “Some like Szasz and Breggin don’t find their personal egos threatened by this knowledge and I expect other psychiatrists who profess to support us to adopt the same attitude.”

    Neither Szasz or Breggin dropped their medical degree or disavowed the psychiatric profession.

    Breggin as far as I know still does therapy and helps people get off of psych drugs; he is also paid handsomely for these services. I am glad he does this work for people. If he didn’t have a medical license he wouldn’t be able to help these survivors with tapering protocols.

    Szasz also publicly declared himself NOT “anti-psychiatry.” Ironically I do not agree with his reasons for taking this position, but this is a fact. A topic for another discussion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ted

    Yes, “forced psychiatry” or the use of any force by psychiatry is wrong and must be opposed.

    Ted, psychiatrist’s such as E Fuller Torrey and Jeffrey Lieberman are clearly powerful figures within Biological Psychiatry; I don’t care what they think of us. They will find any way they can to attack us and defend themselves.

    Without compromising any of our principles I do care what open minded and other dissident psychiatrists think about us, and how close they are willing to work with us to oppose Biological Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Radical movements gather allies for the purpose of creating conditions to win battles and achieve the goals of their movement. At times that means uniting with some groups or individuals that you still have differences with. Any examination of prior revolutionary movements proves this to be true

    And let’s be clear here, I am referring to only a minority of psychiatrists at this time that I believe there is a possibility of winning over to stand opposed, on different levels, to Biological Psychiatry. In NO WAY am I suggesting that psychiatrists should be the focus of our organizing efforts; nor do I think our success depends on winning them over. The focus of our organizing efforts should clearly be among survivors and their families.

    Encouraging, inspiring, and even cajoling some psychiatrists to speak out and oppose Biological Psychiatry could be a valuable thing within a developing movement.

    Would you rather have this minority drop out of their profession OR unite with us on some level in order to make waves within their profession; perhaps even create a major split within psychiatry? I choose the latter option.

    This would not end our criticisms of some of the essential flaws in psychiatry’s theory and practice, but in fact be a new beginning for that struggle. Image the impact this would have if this minority of psychiatrists became very public about the harm being done by the Biological Psychiatry trend and disavowed having any role within it.

    BTW, prison guards and police do not enter their profession with the stated intention to help people who are experiencing trouble in the world. We all know the profiles of the types of people who are attracted to becoming cops and prison guards. I don’t believe your analogy holds up.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Uprising and Sally

    Thanks for the interest and for the feedback. I definitely will not be promoting a “Golden Age of Psychiatry.” And rest assured that I am not without criticism of the “Rest” of psychiatry and its theoretical and practical foundations.

    There are many reasons why a minority of psychiatrists are starting to distance themselves from the dominant trend of Biological Psychiatry. And I know there are some psychiatrists who had problems with it from the beginning. We need to find ways to unite with these people; they could play a positive role in the coming battles. The “anti-psychiatry” approach, without making distinctions within the profession, gets in the way of seeking out these potential allies.

    I will try to address your questions in greater detail in Part 2.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Malaika

    Welcome to MIA. I have worked for 21 years as a therapist/counselor in community mental and I can identify with many of your thoughts about working on the inside. Being on the inside certainly does challenge us to learn how to struggle with people in a way that might have a chance of winning them away from being swallowed up by Biological Psychiatry’s oppressive paradigm of so-called treatment.

    “Black and white” or “Up against the wall” approaches will not educate people, but only alienate others or ultimately isolate us. This DOES NOT mean, however, we do not call out and expose those things that are clearly wrong; we just have to find the best ways to conduct that struggle.

    To stay true to our beliefs and defend potential victims from this system does require risk taking. I once wanted to write a blog titled “How to Do Revolutionary Work in the Community Mental Health System Without Getting Fired or Going Crazy.” The truth is some of us have been and will be fired (and some may even have gone “crazy”), and if that happens it will (if organized around) provide opportunities to educate people more about this oppressive system.

    You did say said something I definitely disagree with:

    “I hear some people say that there’s no hope for the mental health system and we need to throw it away and start over. I don’t disagree with the “throw it away and start over” approach but guess how that happens? I THINK IT HAPPENS FROM WITHIN THE SYSTEM.” (my emphasis added)

    I believe revolutionary change will most likely occur with people on the inside uniting with activists on the OUTSIDE of the system. In fact it much more likely that the impetus for change will be initiated from the outside, especially led by survivors and other outside dissidents who have left the system.

    You said : “I’m not sure if I could work in the system if I didn’t have support from my supervisor, coworkers, and senior leadership.”

    I find my greatest support and inspiration has been from those activists and survivors outside the system who add strength to my convictions and a sense of moral responsibility to do what is right and just.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonah

    Thankyou for your heartfelt response and positive feedback about my participation at MIA.

    Many people here at MIA are having some problems with name “Biological Psychiatry” and with its definition. I will soon be posting a blog that I hope will clarify this confusion. I will just say, as an initial tease for this coming blog, that history has already chosen this name for this particulat institution and historical trend; it is really done deal at this point. Even if we think there could be a better name or description; it’s really too late now. Biological Psychiatry is VERY confortable with the name and they know exactly what they mean by it. And I have been reading MIA since its inception and the terms Biological Psychiatry or biopsychiatry have been used thousands of times to describe the perpetrators of psychiatric oppression.

    Jonah, you are correct to say that there is much more to Biological Psychiatry than its genetic based theories of “mental illness.” And I should add that to be opposed to Biological Psychiatry does not mean one has to deny the role of genetics. What follows is a quote from my very first blog at MIA on this wery question:

    “There is no definitive evidence of genetics being a CAUSAL factor in addiction. Just as with so called “mental illness,” their billions of dollars in research for the “Holy Grail” have come up empty. Their temporary hits and near misses receive tons of publicity, but their failures are hidden on the back pages.

    All human beings are genetically predisposed to develop addictions and the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness.” Nobody stands above or is immune from potentially developing these problems. In the right combination of circumstances ANY human being can develop an addiction and/or a state of extreme psychological distress. This will occur if any particular person is exposed to enough stress or trauma and/or if they use certain substances for a long enough period of time in a certain set of environmental conditions.

    While there is probably something called a “genetic predisposition” for these two types of problems, we must question how this concept can ever be very useful. For example, in the case of psychotic like symptoms, if we take two people and subject them to a certain number of hours of torture and one person starts to show signs of psychosis after 18 hours and the other at 21 hours, should we spend millions of dollars to determine why there was a 3 hour difference between the two people? Shouldn’t our society be more concerned with why there was torture going on in the first place and what gave rise to those conditions and how to eradicate the material basis for such conditions?”

    Jonah, just as Sandra Steingard’s view have evolved here at MIA, so have mine as well. I want to thank you and people like Anonymous who wrote so passionately and decisively on the issue of forced “treatment.” If you had spoken with me 3-4 years ago I might have presented a similar view as Jonathan Keyes who clearly upholds forced “treatment” in certain situations. Your narratives and political analysis sharply clarified the issues of harm done and denial of human rights so that I was able to be more consistent with my overall perspective on the oppressive nature of Biological Psychiatry.

    I hope to continue this discussion at a future time and I hope you will read and respond to my future blog on this subject.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonah

    Welcome back. I would feel honored to know that it was my comments that inspired you to come back from your recent leave of absence. I am not sure that is true, but I am glad to hear from you.

    Your personal story and passionate contributions to MIA are always of great interest to me. Also you have raised important questions regarding forced treatment and forced drugging and how it relates to the ideology and practice of Biological Psychiatry.

    Additionally, you raised specific questions about how Dr. Sandra Steingard should be evaluated since she seems to support forced treatment and perhaps forced drugging in certain limited situations.

    I still believe that Sandra is not fundamentally a supporter of Biological Psychiatry based on her writings and practice. She does not promote the centrality of a genetic/disease/drug based model of treatment. However it is true she still holds on to a few of the backward ideas and practices that are fundamental to the oppressive power and control that Biological Psychiatry wields within the mental health field. I do believe in some of her recent writings she is clearly struggling with the morality of these practices and has been carefully considering the positions of those people who are firmly opposed to any form of forced “treatment.”

    Jonah, as you know in your debates with MIA author, Jonathan Keyes, that there are other major critics of Biological Psychiatry who still cling to some exceptions when it comes to forced treatment. I am a big supporter of Jonathan’s writings but I share your position that he is inconsistent and wrong to support any form of forced treatment.

    I do believe it is true that some people who are not restrained against their wishes (with forced “treatment”) will indeed hurt themselves and perhaps even die from some form of self harm.

    However, there is also a great deal of evidence that indicates the long term outcomes of the experience of forced “treatment” often leads to a greater amount of overall harm done to its victims; this includes incidents of “treatment” induced suicide or increased levels of psychological damage.

    If we determine that the overall harm done by a certain form of intended aid to people in distress clearly exceeds the benefits, then I believe we should not support it. Can anyone today really have much faith that those people in power running the hospitals and institutions that force “treatment” on people really know the kind of help these people truly need? And that all their drugs and other forms of restraints will not intensify psychological distress for those who are most vulnerable?

    The more positive and humane alternatives we can create, in opposition to what the status quo offers, will make all of these difficult decisions easier to make in the future. In the mean time I do hope that people like Jonathan Keyes and Sandra Steingard will eventually change their minds on the questions related to the various forms of forced treatment.

    Jonah, I do think that people can be opposed to Biological Psychiatry and/or do very positive work helping people, and still retain some of the birthmarks of the backward ideology and practice of this oppressive system. In fact, as much as I am opposed to Biological Psychiatry I am sure I still retains some elements of that outlook and I hope that other comrades in our movement will point those out to me as they are revealed.

    We all have much work to do to end psychiatric oppression, and personal transformations are all part of that process. Modern psychiatry has clear divisions within its ranks, and as we more and more target Biological Psychiatry we can help create a sharp division within their ranks that will eventually weaken their grip on the institutions of power, and allow critical thinking psychiatrists to play a more positive role within a growing movement.

    None of this will happen without sharp debate and struggle within our own ranks to develop the correct strategy and tactics to wage a successful struggle. Knowing who our enemy and friends are and how we can “unite all who can be united” will determine our success or failure in the coming battles.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra, Daniel, and others

    Sandra stated: “My point is that the notion “biological psychiatrist” is a construct that has no meaning for me.”

    I say Biological Psychiatry is NOT a construct without meaning. It is a descriptive name given to a specific historical trend that has grown to dominate and ultimately seize control of psychiatry over the past 40 years.

    I believe it was Dr. Peter Breggin who coined the phase “Biological Psychiatry” in the late 1980’s to describe this growing reductionist trend that reduces all the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness” to genetically (biological) based brain diseases that require psychiatric drugs to correct so-called inherent chemical imbalances.

    I believe the term “biological” was used to emphasize the fact that this backward trend was promoting genetics over environmental causes as an explanation for extreme forms of psychological distress.

    To be opposed to Biological Psychiatry does NOT mean that one has to believe that a person’s biology is somehow not involved in human thoughts and behavior. It just means that we do not onesidedly reduce thoughts and behaviors to genetics divorced from the critical role of environmental triggers.

    Today, Biological Psychiatry represents the wedding of genetic theories of so-called “mental illness” with the pharmaceutical industry, the APA, and the major educational institutions training psychiatrists.

    Over the past 40 years these powerful forces have colluded at the highest levels to seize control of the psychiatric profession and the entire mental health field in this country and throughout most of the world. This collusion is well documented by Whitaker in “Anatomy of an Epidemic.” It is now a firmly entrenched and highly profitable industry with enormous power over millions of people’s lives.

    Sandra, based on your writings at MIA and the descriptions of your practice, you do NOT fit the above definition of Biological Psychiatry. THANKFULLY I can say this because I like you based on my reading of your evolving narrative and scientific contributions to the critical questions being debated on this website.

    Sandra, I would hope, that you and other critical thinking psychiatrists would more and more see Biological Psychiatry (as it functions in today’s world) as an oppressive force that is causing great harm to people, as well as, destroying what ever good could possibly come out of the psychiatric profession. Today’s minority of dissident and open minded psychiatrists need to unite to oppose this backward trend and its total domination of the mental health field.

    One of our goals in our movement for radical change should be to create conditions for a major split in the ranks of psychiatry. Biological Psychiatry should be targeted and increasingly isolated as an oppressive and backward historical force.

    As you may have noticed I repeatedly capitalize “Biological Psychiatry” because I believe it has become a significant enough historical trend (in a backward direction) to warrant such a major emphasis.

    I am NOT anti-psychiatry, but I AM proudly anti-Biological Psychiatry. And I believe anyone who critically reads the science reported at MIA, combined with the narratives of survivors and other dissidents, should be too.

    I believe that there can be a positive role in our movement for the minority of dissident and open minded psychiatrists who want to help people in psychological distress in the coming period. Even if all psychiatric drug prescriptions were stopped today there would still be at least several decades of important work (by knowledgeable psychiatrists) necessary to help others in the movement study and develop safe psychiatric drug withdrawal protocols for people in need.

    So in conclusion, I have no problem with Daniel’s pointed criticisms of Biological Psychiatry as long as he remains open to the importance of dialoguing with other potential allies within psychiatry who could possibly play a positive role within our movement. And based on reading his writings so far, I have no reason to believe he would not welcome such involvement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Stephen

    I just want to validate your personal and professional experience regarding the rates of childhood abuse of all forms, especially sexual abuse.

    Having worked 21 years in community mental health as a therapist, your own experience and observations match what I have witnessed as well.

    Your candid and deeply personal comments at MIA are very much appreciated.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • RISN

    I just found your comment and question. It would be very hard for me to answer this question without knowing a great deal more details regarding the specific situation and people you might be working under.

    Do you have a sympathetic and knowledgeable doctor or prescriber to work with who is willing to take some risks? If your program develops a set of positive/ non oppressive protocols regarding treatment and drugging issues, and people are willing to follow them, then I don’t think you should worry too much about Medicaid billing until they question your practices.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Daniel

    Thanks so much for doing this film. It is very important that this history making be documented. I was away at the time of the demo and very disappointed that I could not attend. Your film gave me a real sense of the spirit and content of this protest. I can’t wait for the next opportunity to expose and demonstrate against the criminal enterprise of Biological Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Laura

    A powerful call to action. It was so fitting that it was published at MIA on May 1st which is an international holiday celebrating revolution.

    I am away at this time otherwise I would be joining with everyone in New York. Please carry my spirit in your radical endeavors; hope to talk soon.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Biological Psychiatry is the name that both labels and describes the reactionary wing of psychiatry that currently dominates the profession and the entire mental health system in this country and most of the world. This backward trend promotes a genetic/disease/drug based model of so-called “mental illness.”

    Biological Psychiatry is the wedding of genetic theories with the pharmaceutical corporations, the APA, and the major training institutions for psychiatry; it stands as a major institution of modern oppression

    I believe it was Peter Breggin who first referred to this trend as “biological psychiatry” perhaps in the late 1980’s. The use of the word “biological” refers more to genetics and the concept of human behavior being ultimately determined by one’s “biology” as opposed to the concept of genes and resulting behavior being stimulated and shaped by triggers within one’s environment.

    I choose to capitalize “Biological Psychiatry” because it has since gained enough power and historical significance to be compared with other major backward trends in history, such as Nazism, which are also capitalized.

    I believe it is important to isolate this trend in order to further educate the masses and create conditions for a major a split with modern psychiatry; this type of development would only strengthen our movement.

    You are probably correct that the quote about “capitalists selling rope” originates from Vladimir Lenin.

    Isn’t it amazing that John Lennon’s song “Imagine” has since become so mainstream and acceptable, yet conveys a clear message of a classless socialism and atheism.

    Good to hear from you, Richard

    Report comment

  • AgniYoga

    Thanks for your positive comments.

    You said “I do not like the idea of a revolution–but is there a viable alternative?”

    The problems that are discussed here at MIA cannot be fundamentally changed through reform; they are much bigger than that. This system, with the one percent in power, cannot exist without all their various forms of exploitation. We should fight for reforms, but without any delusions that this will somehow end the oppression we write so passionately about.

    Revolutions can be risky, but hoping this system can slowly evolve through various reforms is far riskier. Just looking at the destruction of the environment (as a single issue) by a system that places short term expansion of profit above the long term destruction of our planet, is enough to forego a narrow or patient approach to our struggle.

    From a historical perspective, socialist revolutions are only a 150 years young. The flaws within the earlier experience of revolution must be thoroughly summed up. Why should we accept a summation done by those who have the most to lose by revolutionary change? Should we accept a negative summation of a Soteria House type experiment (that contained some flaws) by someone like E. Torrey Fuller or the head of the APA?

    Humanity can do far better than a system that turns everything, including people, into just another commodity.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Corrine

    Please think again! You absolutely should leave a copy of this blog at the behavioral health facility.

    If some people are offended or even “hurt” by this blog’s analysis this can be a very good thing. First off don’t assume that someone might not learn from or be inspired by these words. Why would you want to deny someone the chance to know more truth about how the world really works and how to change it for the better?

    And Corrine, learning is not always painless, nor should it be. Think about some of the most important lessons you have learned in life, and I bet there was some pain involved. And I bet you are glad now that you went through such pain. Then think about all the great movements for social change and the necessary pain endured to achieve liberation.

    People are dying and suffering every day from the disease/ drug model of so-called treatment. Why should we be worried about hurting the feelings of a minority in power by challenging the harm they are doing? What about the majority being harmed and their feelings?

    “Revolution is not a dinner party” (although dinner parties can create fertile ground for the ferment of ideas and political organizing). Social change is not going to be smooth and painless; that is not how history works.

    Corrine, shake things up a bit; no business as usual!

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan and Andrew

    Eric’s blog posting was overall very very good!

    Yes , of course not all therapists/counselors have bought into the disease/psych drug model; many do great work helping people go through difficult periods in their life. However, it must be said that a large percentage of those people working in this field have accommodated themselves to the medical model. They are either ignorant about it or try to pretend it is not there, and go about their work oblivious to the damage this model does on a daily basis.

    I have worked 21 years in the community mental health system with several hundred therapists, and been involved in hundreds of meetings and discussions about clinical work. I can honestly say that there is a great deal of ignorance in the field with many people traveling on the dangerous “path of least resistance” in this helping profession.

    How many therapists/counselors have a discussion with their clients about what is wrong with diagnosing and labeling?

    How many continue their critical thinking skills on a periodic basis by carefully examining the true nature of the medical model that has completely taken over the mental health system?

    How many simply defer to the power and authority of the psychiatrists they work with and back away from challenging psychiatry’s dominance in community mental health?

    How many try to learn about psychopharmacology and take the time and the risks involved with discussing the dangers of psychiatric drugs with their clients, and discuss how the drug model disempowers and derails the therapeutic process?

    Given the pervasiveness of the disease/drug model, and the overall numbers of people on these drugs, how can anyone do good therapeutic work with people without addressing some of the above questions?

    The answer is, you can’t. And there is not nearly enough people in the field grappling with these questions at this time to make a significant difference. We all have much work to do in order to change this reality. Eric’s blog is a positive contribution in this effort. If some people are offended by it, then perhaps this will start them thinking about what they are, or are not doing to make the world a better place.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    Thanks for your thoughtful response and the overall work you do.

    I believe in the current era of our movement (one in which I am a little later to the table compared to others who have been fighting a longer period of time) we tend to underestimate what impact well targeted radical action could have in the current political environment.

    Yes, Biological Psychiatry, with all its interconnections and support from other institutions representing the status quo, is more powerful than ever. The community mental health clinic where I work now has 11 prescribers of psychiatric drugs; 20 yrs ago it had one. Children are kidnapped and draconian laws are being passed without significant opposition..

    However, at the same time, the scientific and philosophical foundation of Biological Psychiatry has major cracks in its foundation. There are millions of people and their families who either have been and/or are currently being victimized by this criminal system. People are beginning to raise their heads and ask questions and seek answers. In the clinic where I work some of us are beginning to challenge their prescribing patterns of psychotropic drugs; heads are just beginning to turn.

    The truth is on our side, as Copycat said earlier. In a debate we can defeat them if we can find the forms of struggle to wrangle out these issues in front of the masses. Are we actively searching for all the forums where we can make this happen?

    We clearly have enough science at our fingertips and a significant enough number of educated activists to start some important targeted actions challenging Biological Psychiatry. MIA is both a reflection, as well as a catalyst for this stage of a movement that is now at the cusp of a major growth spurt.

    It would be a shame if the more advance elements in our movement at this critical period were to lower their sights and focus on being a pressure group on the Democratic Party or become some other type of lobbying organization. In the 60’s there was an organizing approach that said “unite the advanced to win over the intermediate and neutralize the backward” (neutralize, meaning isolate them and render them ineffective). And of course the “advanced” should be organized around an “advanced” political agenda that represents the highest aspirations of the masses, not the lowest or midlevel common denominator.

    What we currently lack is the collective political will to create such a vanguard organization to seize upon the openings and opportunities that this oppressive system offers up to us everyday. “Where there is oppression there will inevitably be resistance.” We need to be poised to fan the flames of that resistance and take it to a higher level.

    Yes Michael, we need a manifesto and a set of radical demands that calls for a complete dismantling of the so-called mental health system, And we need an organization that will be unrelentingly in its exposure of Biological Psychiatry where ever they are, and disrupt their “business as usual” in well planned targeted actions. All this carried out with a goal of educating more and more people about the true oppressive nature of this system with an eye toward major systemic change. Yes, all this is both necessary and possible at this time; “Dare to struggle, Dare to Win.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    What MOST importantly is missing in all that you discuss is a radical vanguard organization of survivors and other dissidents from the mental health system targeting Biological Psychiatry where ever they go and what ever they do. That is, the modern equivalent of Black Panther Party translated into a type of radical mental health liberation movement.

    Think about what actually created the most favorable conditions for civil rights legislation and for Martin Luther King to be now viewed as acceptable to almost every one. Was it not the Malcolm X’s, The Black Panther Party and other more radical dissidents combined with the major urban rebellions in multiple cities that shook this system to its core and forced the arms of government to begrudgingly accept change they so vehemently opposed a few years prior.

    Vanguard organizations always create space for others to act in ways indicating that they (in this case) may not be yet quite ready for the radical dismantling of the current mental health system. There will always be people who will do more mainstream actions pressuring politicians and seeking political reform, but it is the more vanguard groups who eventually capture the imagination and involvement of the masses that ultimately provides the historical engine and conditions for a movement to advance a particular cause.

    Is there not a danger of taking all the radical sentiments and creative energy of many of the activists who participate at MIA and burning them out in the dead end activities and mind numbing game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey or the Elephant. There is nothing more demoralizing than spending precious time trying to lobby all the corrupt and money bought politicians to become something they never will be; that is, true representatives of the people. This type of burning out process and cooptation of activists was one of the things that derailed the movement in the 60’s.

    Should we not aspire to become something more than the radical lobbying equivalent of NAMI with just a different agenda?

    Does getting bogged down fighting for reform ultimately lead to revolution OR does fighting for revolution more often lead to reforms and perhaps, in the right historical conditions, to something much higher and more profound of a political change?

    Don’t misunderstand me. I know that the people who do this type of reform work are very dedicated and have high aspirations, and I admire their hard work, it is just that our movement is currently lacking the vanguard elements at this time. I believe some of us should be focusing our efforts in this direction or we will never have the kind of movement that will go far enough to truly liberate the oppressed.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    Thanks for your interpretation of this study and your willingness to challenge the psychiatric establishment.

    I have a question and also a suggestion of a title for your next blog.

    My question is as follows: What do you think like minded psychiatrists, such as yourself, should do if main stream psychiatry continues to ignore this rising evidence that major tranquilizers (“anti-psychotics”) cause far more harm than good?

    And given that there is an implied message in all this evaluation of said research that tells us that major tranquilizers actually sustain psychotic symptoms by changing brain structure with the addition of D2 dopamine receptors (and related super sensitivity syndrome) and create conditions for brain shrinkage, my title suggestion for your next blog is the following:

    “Do Neuroleptics “Anti-psychotics” Sustain the Symptoms of Psychosis and Create Neurological Conditions for Their Very Existence”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    It is amazing how these doctors can be so cavalier and totally minimize the dangers of their prescribing patterns “on the path of least resistance.” If the drug companies make them and advertise their benefits, and then the public demands them, it must be okay to prescribe them; in moderation, of course. Yea, right!

    I have repeatedly stated that benzos are emotionally crippling drugs when taken for the long term. This doctor has more or less said the same thing when he states “…I think these individuals suffer a loss of self-confidence. Their ability to rely on themselves has been undermined by their reliance on these drugs.”

    In today’s world the “path of least resistance” is such a dangerous road to be on. Philip, keep writing about benzodiazapines; we cannot educate ourselves enough about the dangers of these drugs.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jack

    Recent articles and sources listed on this website have reported evidence that in at least 30% of all opiate overdose deaths, bendodiazapines were found in the victim’s bloodstream. It is likely that the decisive ingredient in the drug cocktail leading to Philip Seymour Hoffman’s death was a benzo. Biological Psychiatrists and other doctors, with all their reckless prescribing patterns, are flying way below the radar in these prescription drug/opiate related deaths.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    Thanks so much for those kind words; you made my day with those comments!

    I so admire your tenacity in many of these struggles. Just because I don’t always respond to your posts that does mean I am not reading them and learning from your tireless work. You have an amazing collection of source material that is so valuable to our movement; thanks for sharing them with us.

    Keep writing and struggling, Comradely Richard

    Report comment

  • Alex

    Have you forgotten that we are engaged in major life and death human rights struggle where people die and are damaged on a daily basis by a very oppressive system? What are you thinking?

    To demean and denigrate a comrade engaged in the frontline of our struggle with such condescending arrogance with your psycho babble attempt at psychoanalyzing her underlying emotional and political motives, is clearly not helpful to our movement.

    It is one thing to raise questions about strategy and tactics regarding who are our friends and enemies, and what are correct methods of struggle, but you took this to a whole different level. This was not constructive feedback or criticism but rather misguided sniping that completely misreads the nature of our struggle. If this type of feedback was actually accepted as having valuable content, it would only serve to demoralize activists and set back our movement.

    You said: “What purpose did it serve for you to demean an entire event, and then to come onto MIA and blast it for all to see, because you may have some personal or political agenda?”

    If the event (despite the well meaning intentions of the organizers) was serving to promote the agenda of Biological Psychiatry then it absolutely makes perfect sense that it should be “blasted” and exposed on MIA.

    AND SINCE WHEN IS IT WRONG TO HAVE A POLITICAL AGENDA? Did Malcolm X, Frederick Douglas, John Brown, and Harriet Beecher Stowe (to name a few in the Black Liberation movement) have a political agenda? Every important historical movement and its leaders had a political agenda. If we don’t have a political agenda then we will NEVER end psychiatric oppression.

    You said: “I made it with heart and faith, something I have failed to see evident in ANYTHING (emphasis added) you have had to offer on MIA, in general, and most certainly, on this blog.”

    WOW! Is this constructive criticism at its very best, or perhaps an attempt to beat some one down and perhaps demoralize those of us who would engage in the very difficult day to day battles on the frontlines of our struggle?

    Alex, Sera is one of our best bloggers. I have learned from some of your comments in the past but I truly hope you are capable of rethinking the content of your above statement.

    You said: “I sincerely wish you the very best. You have a lot to offer the world, but first, I wish you would heal that angry heart of yours.”

    Alex, are you going to charge Sera for that piece of “therapeutic” advice?

    WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ANGER? We need more anger not less. Anger is an inevitable emotion and feeling that arises out of all oppression. It exists in the human species for evolutionary reasons. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anger; it is what we DO with our anger and how we CHANNEL it in constructive ways that can make the critical differences in how we can change the world.

    I believe Sera is channeling her anger in very incisive and decisive ways. You GO COMRADE!!! Keep writing and speaking out.

    Richard

    You may be in a different place, but that does not give you the right to impose your viewpoints on others in what appears to me to be a somewhat emotionally violent way. This is no different than what psychiatrists do,

    Report comment

  • Seth

    Your arguments are contradictory and you continue to mischaracterize my position, as well as, exaggerate the benefits of Benzos and minimize their potential dangers. I say all this respectfully, because I share many(not all) of your positions that I have followed for some time on this website.

    My position is consistent. I accept the drug centered model and oppose the disease model. I have never stated that certain drugs should never be used; this includes the mislabeled “anti-psychotics.”

    You, on the other hand, do not completely uphold the drug centered model because it appears that you approve of all drugs being prescribed and used (if someone so chooses) except the category of drugs originally called major tranquilizers (mislabeled as ” anti-psychotics”).

    You stated above to Madmom the following: “Psychologically ingesting “anti-psychotics” convey the message that the client has a disease. Taking a Valium conveys a different message–that the client suffers from anxiety. ”

    The message of “disease” you refer to is in the “eye of the beholder.” If some one believes in the disease model, then of course they will see things as you describe. But some one could just as well believe (and be correct in their interpretation of reality) that they are suffering some form of psychosis or other extreme state (which, by the way, may actually be, an extreme form of anxiety) and want those symptoms reduced using a major tranquilizer such as Abilify. For some people this might even work better than a Benzo, and they, as well, should have the right to obtain such a prescription. (this is all qualified by the fact that most psychiatrists don’t know what they are doing when they prescribe these drugs). And with the right support system, in the right environment, and for a recommended short period of time and with a clear exit strategy, the use of this type of drug might help some people. While this is my position, I say all this with extreme reservations as well as being open to amendments. This is truly being consistent with a “drug centered model.”

    For some people taking a Benzo might ALSO “convey the message” that they have a serious addiction to these drugs, in addition to the fact that they may also experience anxiety. And continuing the use of these drugs, instead of safely tapering, may actually be doing far more harm than good in their lives. These are very difficult decisions and choices that many people have to make, especially those who have been damaged by an oppressive psychiatric system.

    Drugs of all kinds have many contradictory functions in human existence. In my first blog publication here at MIA titled “Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease Model” I made the following statement:

    “In opposition to the disease model we might find it helpful to conceptualize and understand both addiction and symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness,” more simply as useful coping mechanisms that over time “get stuck in the on position.” Let me explain. Human beings are driven to repeat behaviors that are pleasurable and/or take away pain, and they usually have sound cognitive rationalizations for doing so. These tendencies are very much related to our survival as a species, especially when you look at the drive to eat, drink, and procreate. In other forms of pleasure seeking and pain avoidance most people who use alcohol and other mind altering drugs more often feel very good in the earlier stages of their use. This is especially true when there are generally fewer negative consequences associated with their consumption. Some people have also postulated that human beings are, at times, attracted to altered states of consciousness. This can be a way to avoid boredom through experimentation, or, perhaps more often, become a creative way to escape or rise above the resulting discomfort or trauma experienced in a threatening environment. In the beginning stages of drug use, these substances may provide a temporary pleasurable escape from a harsh reality and/or become a very successful short term coping mechanism that actually prevents more dangerous reactive behaviors (including suicide), or perhaps even helps prevent the person from going “crazy”.”

    In this article I go on to discuss the process whereby these successful coping mechanisms reach a point when they may turn into their opposite and become self defeating and overall harmful to a person’s life. I bring up these quotes to further indicate that you have mischaracterized my position and made incorrect assumptions.

    You say; “psychiatrists do not have the right to deny patients the right to use benzo’s to alleviate anxiety. They are the least harmful tranquilizing drugs and since persons cannot get them without a prescription THE CHOICE SHOULD BE WITH THE CLIENT. I do not think you or Hickey agree. I think you feel the doctor should have the right to make that choice for the client. Is that not right DR Hickey? Is hat NOT your position?”

    Seth, I don’t think that you or anyone else can say with any certainty that” Benzos are the least harmful drugs.” Some people believe they wreak havoc with the brain’s gaba receptors, perhaps even causing permanent damage, or at the very least damage for many years after people stop them. And 30% of all opiate related overdose deaths are connected to Benzos. In fact Benzos may be the critical ingredient that ultimately causes death in these overdoses.

    And Seth, Don’t you believe an ethical doctor has the right and responsibility to “do no harm” by, in some cases, saying to some one that “I can no longer prescribe you this drug anymore in good faith because I believe (based on all my knowledge) I would be causing you far more harm than good. So I am referring you to another doctor for a second opinion.” I believe they have that right and responsibility.

    You say; “Benzos are (the) best drugs for alleviating anxiety. ”

    Seth, can’t we also say,with some science to back it up, that Benzos are the best drugs at INCREASING AND SUSTAINING anxiety in some people over the long haul. For as tolerance develops some people experience increased breakthrough anxiety (with their natural coping mechanisms now suffering from almost total atrophy due to long term dependency) and anxiety now becomes a sustaining factor in their life.

    There are other drugs that are effective with anxiety including alcohol, THC, visteril (an others in that category) and neurotin to name a few. I am not suggesting they are necessarily good choices. You and Hermes may be correct that they should be used more often (in place of neuroleptics) when some one is in emotional crisis in a hospital setting. But for some people Benzos can become horrible drugs, and they may not find out until it becomes a serious problem. I still believe you have overall minimized their dangers and exaggerated their role in survivor recovery/liberation.

    Oh, and BTW Seth, I am not a doctor as you made reference above, I am a Licensed Mental Health Counselor working in a community mental health clinic. You can access every position I’ve taken in every discussion at MIA by clicking on my name at the top of this comment.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Seth

    Some of your points made above are misguided and unfair to the author Philip Hickey.

    It is one thing for you to raise some questions regarding the possible use of Benzos in certain cases to help someone in extreme states of psychological distress, but to jump to characterizations such as “…his Calvinistic attitude leads him to make recommendations that would undermine psychiatric survivors’ chances of escaping from the system.” is a leap into critical arrogance.

    The focus of this article was on the overall dangers of Benzos and how their use is justified by Biological Psychiatry’s medical model. He did not address secondary issues related to those survivors who still may still be stuck on Benzos or in some stage of a long term withdrawal or their possible rare substitute replacement for neuroleptics. Out of the 94 million prescriptions for benzodiazapines it is safe to say that at least 93 million represent irresponsible and potentially dangerous prescribing. That is a point worth making here.

    You stated: “…I believe the benzo’s—Valium, Xanax, Klonapin etc– are valuable drugs in our era and can play a critical role in helping persons to avoid being caught by the system, put on neuroleptics and becoming chronic mental patients.”

    I believe this is an extreme position going in the other direction. Some pharmaceuticl CEOs who currently fear for a loss in revenue might seize on this statement to seek out a new niche for their cash cows that are increasing coming under critical evaluation. Benzos are clearly not the savior or antidote for neuroleptics. Seth, I know you did not exactly say this, but your emphasis in the above statement way over exaggerates their importance and minimizes their dangers. Yes, they may have a role to play, but once again, anything beyond a few weeks, in almost all cases is getting into addiction territory and long term dependency. MIA and other survivor stories on the Web have featured hundreds of pages of testimony about the hell of Benzo addiction and withdrawal.

    You said: “Dr Hickey claims that patients have no right to use drugs to alter their consciousness. But no doctor has a right to deny patients’ the rights to used drugs to alleviate anxiety, terror.”

    Philip Hickey made no such claim in his blog. Why don’t you ask him his position on this question?

    You said: “The only responsible position is one that supports the right of informed consent–which means that patients must be told of the awful damage done by neuroleptics.”

    A doctor has responsibility way beyond “Informed Consent.” Doctors must also be completely aware of their power and prestige in the therapeutic relationship. They must also be aware that in our culture of addiction and demand for quick fixes that vulnerable patients might be willing to take risks that doctors need to protect them from. The case of antibiotics is a good example where this guidance is essential in overriding the desire and demands of a patient.

    Philip Hickey did make an error when he stated that: “Dr. Frances is correct: benzodiazepines should be taken off the market …”

    I believe Dr. Allen Francis in his recent statements only advocates that Xanax be removed from the market, not ALL benzodiazapines.

    I hope Philip and others at MIA will join in on this discussion to clarify exactly what role Benzos have to play in both survivor misery and possible forms of relief from extreme states of psychological distress.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    Another great posting that is very timely given the rising number of opiate deaths in this country. Most of the recent news about overdoses in the New England area has focus on fentanyl as the dangerous added ingredient causing a spike in fatalities. Flying way under the radar is the far more dangerous problem related to the proliferation of benzo prescriptions.

    Despite numerous warnings in the literature and from some experts, doctors still recklessly prescribe these drugs in a true Dr. Feelgood fashion. This is also a huge problem in the UK despite the fact that in 2004 the Chief Medical Officer ( the UK equivalent of the U.S.’s Surgeon General) put out a warning to all doctors that benzos should not be prescribed for more that 2-4 weeks.

    Your blog stated: “Benzodiazepines have a legitimate use in general medicine, and in that context are indeed medicines in the proper sense of the term.”

    I believe a better way to state that point would be to say the following: In a hospital or other controlled medical setting, benzodiazapines have some very important and legitimate uses in medicine. Outside of a hospital setting benzos are perhaps the most dangerous and abused drugs in the world and should rarely, if ever, be prescribed for more than 2 weeks; and certainly never prescribed to a person with a history of addiction.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • madmom

    You make some important points. History has proven the value and necessity for vanguard organizations for every significant political movement. The very existence of vanguard organizations corresponds to a correct understanding of the theory of knowledge and its development in the material world.

    A minority of people first come to understand certain scientific principles and social phenomena before others. A minority may also grasp the fact that the actual material conditions exist for a movement to take hold and grow in significant numbers to exact political and/or scientific change in the world.

    It’s a whole different matter to take that understanding and translate it into the organizational forms that can educate and move the masses in a forward direction.

    These are no easy tasks. Effective political organizations are difficult to build and sustain. Differences in strategy inevitably emerge, and then there is always the issues of individual egos and some people becoming intoxicated with power.

    These are all risks and efforts well worth taking; for the world demands that we do not remain silent or back away from the responsibility to find the ways to end all forms of oppression.

    We are at a cross roads within our movement where there is a desperate need for such an organization to emerge.

    Richard

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Oldhead

    Thanks for the positive feedback. In the recent period I have been following your comments and I am very supportive of how you come at these vital issues.

    I have been fighting for a more radical perspective at MIA (from the Left side) for several years now. If you click on a person’s name in the discussion section at MIA (at the top of their comment) you can access every comment they have ever made at MIA (from the most recent to their very first comment). This is a great way of evaluating where some one is coming from on a multitude of issues.

    You are correct to point out the danger of radical/activist movements being coopted by the power structured and then rendered benign. This happened with almost all the movements coming out of the 60’s.

    Another danger is for our movement to end up just being a pressure group on the current host of politicians, begging them to create or change legislation. Or begging the APA and other organizations representing modern psychiatry to please change their ways. This happened all the time in the past where political activist groups would play “pin the tail on the Donkey” by focusing on trying to convince the Democratic Party to be something they never ever will be, that is, a party of revolutionary change.

    Those on the Right can try, but they can’t get around the fact, that Biological Psychiatry is inseparable from its formation within the U.S. capitalist system. Its rapid growth has been dictated by its (the large pharmaceutical corporations and the more petty bourgeoise psychiatric guild’s) need to expand its profit margins, and its inherent need to constantly seek out new markets. Declare more people mentally ill and/or create more psychological dysfunction as more people become dependent on their drugs.

    Biological Psychiatry’s “genetic theories of original sin” are also useful to the capitalist power structure in order to shift people’s attention away from the inherent inequalities in this system and all the daily traumas that poverty a class structure creates. They have a classic “blame the victim” and “blame it on bad genes” routine going here, and they have been quite successful so far.

    We need a new radical organization in our movement with a manifesto and program that exposes and condemns Biological Psychiatry (using genuine science combined with survivor experiences) and haunts them where ever they go with carefully chosen militant direct action. (No, Duane, I am not talking about violence).

    Let’s create conditions for Biological Psychiatry to become paranoid. Where ever they go and try to speak they start to look around the audience wondering when and if they will be disrupted by some one exposing their crimes and bogus science.

    Duane and others,

    I used the Black Panther Party example to point out the fact that they arose out of an oppressed minority, fought militantly against their oppression, and also attempted to serve the direct needs of the masses within that struggle. They truly captured the imagination of millions of young people of all races who wanted to change the world.

    A few Black Panther members could leave Calif. and go to a distant city and stand on a street corner with a bullhorn in any urban ghetto and immediately recruit new members for a local organization. They had the right organization for the right time

    As far as violence goes with the Black Panther Party, in almost every case it was violence initiated by the Ruling Class aimed at destroying their party and dividing its members. They were the victims (by the FBI and COINTELPRO counter insurgency) of one of this countries most concerted campaigns to destroy political opposition, including targeted assassination and police murder.

    While the analogies to organization are not exactly the same, I believe the conditions exist today to capture the imagination of thousands of victims/survivors of Biological Psychiatry to join with other activists working in the mental health field who are sickened by what they observe every day at their jobs.

    While MIA has been an invaluable resource, and it must be supported and expanded in its influence, we need separate and new forms of resistance and organization to emerge within our movement. “Dare to struggle, Dare to win.”

    BTW, Oldhead what part of the country are you from?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • 1) As long as science, medicine, and the treatment of those labeled as mentally ill takes place in a profit based system there is the basis for corruption and multiple forms of oppression. Biological Psychiatry, which dominates the current paradigm of treatment, will NOT change on its own or slowly evolve over time. There will have to be a series of radical upheavals and systemic changes within and around the mental health system as part of a wider movement challenging the entire political and economic system we live under for true justice to be served.

    2) While our movement has grown in numbers and influence, at the same time the number of people taking psychiatric drugs and being harmed by this system is growing concurrently. Abilify is the largest selling drug of any medical category (18 billion dollars a year) with off label use spreading far and wide, especially to children. Biological Psychiatry is still growing with impunity. The more they drug people and create emotional and physical damage, the more potential customers they are creating who will get labeled and in desperation end up in their grasp. Their disease/drug model is constantly generating an unending supply of potential victims addicted and dependent on their prescribed drugs. and needing acute care.

    3) The underground movement of survivors and activists creating groups and other gatherings to help people get educated about the true nature of Biological Psychiatry and liberate themselves from psychiatric drugs ( with psych drug withdrawal aid) is a powerful indictment of this system by itself, as well as, a potential breeding ground for new activists to arise from its ranks

    4) While helping people get off, or reduce the drugs should be the essence of these groups, we should not underestimate the importance of recruiting people within those groups for our movement. And besides, people becoming activists against their oppressors can be a vital part of their overall success at liberation from the clutches of Biological Psychiatry and their toxic chemicals.

    5) Our goal and strategy should not be to hope for or engage in trying to change modern psychiatry, but rather to create the conditions for a real split within its ranks and organizations. This is more realistic because many of today’s Biological Psychiatrists will desperately hold on to their backwardness to the very end. Radical and dissident psychiatrists (even a small minority) uniting with survivors and other activists can play a very positive role within our movement.

    6) While various forms of education along with survivor drugs withdrawal group are very important to our movement, we desperately need the modern equivalent of the Black Panther Party for survivors and other mental health activists. It is this type of organization, raising hell and uniting with other human rights struggles, that could make a decisive difference in advancing our movement and ultimately defeating Biological Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This murder of a psychiatric patient is an outrageous crime that needs our immediate attention, including various forms of protest. People must read the entire Boston Globe expose of this story. I just attempted to send Kermit a copy of the whole article from my own online subscription to the Boston Globe.

    The original coroner’s report back in 2009 labeled this a homicide. This was subsequently changed when other political influences interceded in the case. Since this murder took place 5 years ago nobody has been indicted OR EVEN DICIPLINED for this crime. This clearly shows how much a human being labeled as “schizophrenic” is valued in today’s society. The family has filed a civil suit for their son’s death but still want legal justice for those responsible.

    I would hope that some one from MIA could reach out to this family and offer support, introduce them to MIA, and perhaps interview them for a blog posting at MIA.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    Your quote from a source listed above: “As an economic system, fascism is *socialism* with a capitalist veneer… ”

    Once again this is not a scientific statement and represents more right wing nonsense.

    Being scientific: socialism is actually a transitional system on the road to communism, a classless society with no state that operates under the principle of “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

    In other words, over many generations (perhaps hundreds of years of education and socialization) people will eventually learn that society works best if we give all that we can to make society work, and only take what we need.

    Now whether or not you believe humans are capable of achieving this type of political and social organization is one thing you can argue. Go at it with great fervor if you so desire. These are very real questions to be debated and dissected.

    But some people attempt to derail any real discussion and take the dishonest and lazy ass road by repeating “bogey man” arguments that equate socialism with fascism. This is clearly meant to end all discussion.

    In one of your right wing sources you listed above, it stated that socialism had no markets, no entrepreneurs, or wage scales. Again, unscientific and patently false.

    By definition, socialism as a transitional stage moving towards communism, will still have many of the birthmarks left over from capitalism. So there will still be some markets, small capitalists, and wage scales. Although clearly people will not be allowed to have multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses. And long term efforts would be made to narrow the gaps between incomes as part of gradually moving towards the elimination of classes.

    Duane, as long as you repeat unscientific falsehoods on this topic, whether they are your own or from other sources, I will attempt to respond and correct you.

    Duane, you once said on this blog that in people’s comments they should avoid any criticism of capitalism, the military, and religion.

    I would say that Biological Psychiatry and the system that gave rise to it, and today continues to nurtures it, should not be off limits.

    And as to the interconnectedness between all these topics (capitalism, the military, and religion). They are, at times, serious topics to wrangle with in the right context and to relate to the purpose of the MIA mission. And besides, sometimes we all need to have a little fun while we’re at it.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    You said “Richard, again, I do not think this is the place to get into a debate about what constitutes socialism. I also was not being “dishonest” by expressing my political views.”

    Again, I have no problem with political views being expressed here. The ultimate solution to all the oppression in the mental health system being discussed and exposed at MIA will eventually come about through some type of revolutionary upheaval and major POLITICAL change in the world.

    Duane, I only asked you to be scientifically accurate in your use of political terminology. You have demanded the same of other participants at MIA when the topic refers more specifically to Biological Psychiatry and the current paradigm of mental health treatment.

    And Duane, I did not say you were “dishonest.” I said your argument and misuse of the term socialism “BECOMES dishonest IF done INTENTIONALLY…” (emphasis added). Only you can determine if this was done intentionally or if you are blindly following other right wing ideologues who DO dishonestly equate fascism with socialism.

    I must remind you that in Germany, before the rise of the Third Reich and before Jews, homosexuals, and the mentally ill were exterminated, the Nazis party targeted all communists and socialists. They were viewed as the main obstacle to the rise of fascism.

    And it is a historical fact that the communists and socialists in all the countries in Europe were THE major leaders of the fascist resistance. This is true despite what ever criticisms you or others may have of these movements; all of which you are entitled to have and express. I have my own secondary criticisms as well.

    We all have much to learn in scientifically evaluating the positive and negative experiences in this his historical era, but we need to be painfully accurate while going against the establishment’s efforts at revisionist history.

    Duane, we share common beliefs and passions regarding Biological Psychiatry. As we have approached these issues from somewhat different directions I am sure we will occasionally do some political sparring in the future as this movement goes forward; how could it be any other way.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    You don’t need to apologize for being “political” at MIA, but you should try to be politically and scientifically accurate when doing so.

    Your attempts to equate the current U.S. government with both the “National Socialism” of Hitler’s Nazi Party and “Socialism” in general, is wrong on both fronts.

    The Obama government is acting very much like ardent followers of the capitalist system in this country and capitalist imperialism abroad. They are not “Socialist” in any way, shape or manner. Their cooperation with the pharmaceutical industry and Biological Psychiatry is not surprising in the least.

    To use the word socialism to describe this government is unscientific, and becomes dishonest if intentionally done to promote a certain right wing political agenda attacking those who would seek alternatives to the current capitalistic system.

    From Wikipedia: “The use of the name “National Socialism” arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of “socialism”, as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism. This involved the idea of uniting rich and poor Germans for a common national project without eliminating class differences (a concept known as “Volksgemeinschaft”, or “people’s community”), and promoted the subordination of individuals and groups to the needs of the nation, state and leader. National Socialism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle, opposed ideas of equality and international solidarity, and sought to defend private property.”

    “German Nazism subscribed to the theories of racial hierarchy and social Darwinism.” It is clear from the above quotes that historically the Nazis attempted to coopt the word “socialism” in response to the rising tide of socialist movements in Europe. In no way does “National Socialism” as defined and practiced by the Nazi Party equate with the scientific definition of “Socialism.”

    Duane, if you wish to promote a view that the current government in this country is oppressive and moving in a fascist direction, you will receive no argument from me. However you need to be more scientifically accurate with your use of the term “Socialism” and avoid promoting a narrow political agenda.

    And as far as “Libertarianism” being the answer to all our societal ills, I urge people to read Peter Levine’s essay on Ayn Rand (the Godmother of modern Libertarianism) which can be accessed on his own website; I believe on page four of his essays.

    To me, Biological Psychiatry and other forms of totalitarianism would only thrive in a political environment that worships the concept of unregulated capitalism. Human social and economic organization can and must do far better than this if we want to survive as a species.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • To Skybluesight

    I prefer communicating with you, not @ you. I also learn well from being challenged and hearing polarized viewpoints. You say you respect nothing less than candid, hardnosed critiques of your thinking and actions. I will take you at your word and challenge you if you are remotely open to accepting this kind of feedback.

    You say, “Your attitudes are part of the problem not the solution – you are harmful and counter-productive in your support of dysfunctional social processes in open society. I have no use for you people and your misplaced sympathy paradigm – that social ideology is most likely what killed her son…”

    So now I am no better than your enemy because I differ in opinion about how to conduct debate and discussion at MIA. In fact, you equate me with the oppressive forces of Biological Psychiatry that had a hand in killing Larmac’s son.

    Skybluesight, you reaffirm my point that your approach cannot distinguish friend from foe, nor understand how to win over potential allies in a protracted struggle to change the world.

    You say “I’m fully aware of what position you are taking, I’ve seen it many times.”

    I am 66 yrs old and a product of the upheavals of the 1960’s and post 60’s radicalism. Your approach is especially familiar to me. It very much reminds me of certain “ultra left” strategies that ended up isolating the movement from the masses and fizzled out after a series of small super militant actions that were ultimately crushed by the powers that be.

    “Ultra Left” approaches have certain common features:

    1) No patience for a protracted long term struggle.

    2) Black or white thinking with little understanding of the greys or recognition of how the greys can move from one side or to the other. An approach that says “You’re either with us NOW, or against us NOW.”

    3) A style of political struggle that resembles something like “Up against the wall M….. F…..” with no patience or understanding for the multiple forms of political persuasion geared to each particular situation and to the learning style of the listeners.

    3) No faith that the masses can ultimately be won over and become part of a revolutionary struggle. So therefore a small group of individuals acting like the “heroes” who know the truth must run way ahead of the masses creating an artificial crisis that will force the inactive masses to follow behind them.

    This ultra left approach is lazy ass, isolating, and in the final analysis, very defeatist.

    It is hard work and requires patience to take the time to figure out the nuances of the strategy and tactics in a protracted struggle to change the world.

    It is so much easier to just pull out a shotgun and start firing. Yes, a few of the buckshot might strike the target but there will also be a lot of collateral damage that allows the enemy to “divide and conquer” by isolating us on the fringes.

    Great coaches do not treat all their players in the same fashion. Some players respond well to hardnosed criticism, others require more patience and nurturing with positive feedback, as well as other specific approaches. Your approach makes no such distinction. In fact your related comments imply that you don’t seem to much care if any group becomes united around some type of winning strategy.

    Anger can be a vital force in political change but it must be harnessed and channeled in very careful and precise ways, otherwise it will eat people up and end up coming out in a scatter shot fashion that will divide instead of unite.

    You say, “You see, everyone analyzes, I just do it much better than most – that’s basically what offends those who think somehow they can hide from others…”

    Skybluesight, you have some work to do if you really want your insights to transform people’s thinking in a way that attracts allies to become true creative agents of change. Ideas by themselves don’t mean shit if they can’t ultimately lead to changing the material world.

    You say, “In fact this is damaging to any person to continually blame external things for their unhappiness when they can simply change something inside of themself and be happy.”

    I don’t think so. Happiness is an elusive goal. It is only momentary and can only exist in a dialectical connection to suffering. And you yourself have stated in insightful ways that suffering is what makes us human; and to drug away suffering is take away our humanity.

    We mainly change our internal self as we go about transforming the material world around us.

    Skybluesight, this is a group effort no matter how difficult or even scary that may seem. Ideas can and must become a material force, and that new material force will create new ideas in an endless dialectical struggle. We must either change it or lose it. This is why strategy and tactics and methods of struggle are so important.

    You say, “It sometimes enables me to be a castigating, arrogant ,mercilessly analyzing, ruthlessly truthful, bast0rd
    That sure makes it all worthwhile.
    ..
    This was fun – like some good Kickapoo joy juice.
    Thanks for the inspiration.”

    Yes, analyzing and dissecting ideas can be fun, and it’s even better when it serves a noble purpose, such as helping to drag Biological Psychiatry into the dust bin of history. However smugness and arrogance will never get us where we need to go. I think on some level you know this.

    I will read and learn from your postings in the future if you continue to participate; I hope you will do the same.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Skybluesight

    I have read almost all your comments at MIA and have found many of them to be extremely insightful and educating to me and perhaps to many other readers at this website. In fact, I had planned to use one of your responses to Dr. Ragins in a future blog posting I am composing in my head.

    With that being said, I find your treatment of Larmac in the above comments to be completely out of line. Your efforts, no matter how well intentioned, to psycho-analyze and redirect her grief process while using such castigating and arrogant language, is both harmful and counter productive.

    A key part of building any successful movement for social change is knowing who our friends are, as well as, who are our enemies. To treat our friends and allies in the above manner will NOT “unite all who can be united.” This method of struggle will NOT lead to a successful strategy to completely dismantle the current mental health system as part of future revolutionary changes in the world.

    I have also read most of Larmac’s participation at MIA and have found her story both inspiring and very educational. Her overall narrative has provided one of the most powerful indictments of Biological Psychiatry ever presented at MIA.

    Part of the power of that narrative has been her political awakening arising out of the tragic and criminal death of her son at the hands of Biological Psychiatry’s disease model of so-called treatment. For her to share this grief in such a public and political forum with new insights that seem to grow on a daily basis, is truly precious to our movement. It is not for any of us to question, psycho-analyze, or redirect her own unique path to some sort of healing.

    Skybluesight, you have often touted the value of genuine psychotherapy as a way for personal growth and overcoming extreme forms of psychological distress; your own story is inspirational and educational related to this process. I don’t believe MIA should be a place for “therapy” like advice for deeply emotional personal issues, especially when it was not solicited. This could be harmful to some people and misdirect the essential purpose of MIA.

    And when considering my critical feedback, you might want to access the totality of my discussion participation at MIA by simply clicking on my name above, as well as, reading my four blog postings under MIA authors. This will give you an idea of how I have approached multiple topics within this community.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • An added note to the author of this blog who has promoted John Ratey’s book “Spark: The Revolutionary Science of Exercise and the Brain.”

    It needs to be pointed out that John Ratey is co-author with Dr. Edward Hollowell of the book “Driven to Distraction.” This was one of the major theoretical and practical guides promoting the bogus diagnosis of ADHD which has ultimately harmed millions of children and made Big Pharma billions of dollars.

    These authors should be spending ALL their time undoing the enormous harm they have done promoting the so-called brain disorder of ADHD. How can we trust or want to give credence to any other theories they may be promoting?

    It is interesting fact that I once saw Edward Hollowell on the news talking about one of his own son’s development. Apparently he diagnosed one of his sons with ADHD but said the stimulant drugs did not help him. Instead he had him enrolled in a special school that used various forms of exercise to help children create more favorable conditions to learn.

    So think about it, now Hollowell has his son is off all these dangerous drugs and getting this special form of education. WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF OTHER CHILDREN IN THE WORLD WHO ARE NOT SO FORTUNATE AND ARE BEING DAMAGED BY BOTH THE DIAGNOSIS AND THE DRUGGING THAT HE SO VIGOROUSLY PROMOTED? Is there no shame?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I agree with the commenters here that this blog article has some major idealistic hopes and dreams about psychiatry abstracted from the actual oppressive history and day to day practice of the profession.

    This raises the following important question: What about the current minority of psychiatrists in the field who truly went into their profession with good intentions to help people and are sickened by the brain disease/drugging model promoted by the leaders of Biological Psychiatry?

    Should we advocate that they wake up to this reality and just quit their profession and do something else more productive in the world?

    OR do we advocate that dissident psychiatrists raise hell within their professional organizations uniting with psychiatric survivors and other activists in the mental health field with a clear strategy that targets the leaders of Biological Psychiatry and attempts to split their profession into two distinct wings?

    I vote for the “divide and conquer” strategy that “unites all who can be united” targeting the Biological Psychiatry wing of the profession.

    We are not going to win over open minded psychiatrists by telling them they have no right to exist. And besides if all NEW prescriptions for psychiatric drugs were ended today, there would still be several decades of vitally important work necessary to develop the science and practice of more humane tapering regimens to help the millions of victims of the current paradigm of so-called “treatment.”

    Dissident psychiatrists, united in a radical movement to totally dismantle the current mental health system, could play a very important role in helping many people in the coming decades by exposing the true nature of Biological Psychiatry and working in the trenches with its victims.

    As for the question of the long term future of the psychiatric profession, that is something that will be determined in the course of the revolutionary upheavals that replace the current status quo. I work as a therapist in community mental health; the same applies to my profession. It may also end up in the dust bin of history, but it is too early to make that determination or advocate for it.

    Questions of strategy and tactics such as this can sometimes mean the difference between victory and defeat, or actually delay the achievement of our collective goals for a more humane society.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Cannotsay

    Thanks for your thoughtful response; a response that contains many contradictory thoughts.

    You say, “With respect to human nature, we do have the empirical evidence that people do need incentives to produce good work.”

    Of course, we all need incentives in life to accomplish many things BUT that does not mean it must be, or should be, an incentive to be rich or well off.

    Millions of people around the world do wonderful things for other people every day without being financially rewarded for their good deeds. You cannot deny this, or deny the fact that that many great inventions were discovered by human ingenuity and curiosity attempting to solve a problem confronting one’s daily existence and the need to produce and maintain the necessities of life. Some were even discovered by shear curiosity alone.

    You say, “It’s only after your life needs have been covered that you can think about innovating.”

    Yes, yes, yes.! Think about the millions and millions of creative minds throughout the world that cannot be accessed at this historical stage in our history because one half of humanity is not sure where their next meal is coming from.

    Imagine what could be discovered and how far we could advance as a species if we could create a world where those basic needs were available for all so that every one had the opportunity to be both a “thinker and a doer,” and people were actually motivated to do both.

    Discovery that occurs only from financial incentive is narrowly limited to only what will be profitable in the market place, NOT necessarily what human kind needs to advance its interests as a species.

    Cannotsay, you have no argument with me regarding East Germany. This was NOT a genuine socialist system that should be promoted as some kind of model. And I most definitely would put North Korea in the same category – socialist in NAME only. And “Bono” and the “mainstream left” are not icons of mine.

    As for your comments about China – China is a tinderbox waiting to explode. Their complete reversal of socialism and embracement of capitalism has created a very polarized society where those who have become “rich” or more well off are ONLY concentrated in Chinese cities. China still has an enormous section of the population (the overwhelming majority of the population) living in the countryside. They have not benefited from the socialist reversal, in fact, their standard of living has greatly suffered. This polarization will only get worse in the future and the writings of Mao, ironically, are becoming very popular again.

    A single payer or “socialized” system of medical care is NOT a “cure all” or a final solution to the enormous problems facing our society. While I believe it would be a temporary advance over what we have now, if it did not come with other major systemic changes in society then it would have many of the limitations you point out.

    In the end, Cannotsay, your defense of capitalism, a system that really only works for a minority of society, is a “lesser of evils” type analysis.

    Biological Psychiatry is ultimately a creation of the capitalist system and it will not be completely eliminated until there is a major system change. I believe that humanity can do way better than this; dare to think beyond the here and now.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Cannotsay

    The idea and practice of so-called “Free Market” capitalism (with an emphasis on the word “free”) is infinitely more utopian than any concept or practice of socialism and communism.

    There is nothing “free” in the market place except for those who have the capital and power to become players in capitalist economics; and ultimately some of those players will eventually be crushed. Those of us who are mere observers to this process will continue to be tossed around like so much refuge in the storm of their inevitable periods of boom and busts.

    Your vision of a much earlier stage of capitalism comprised of so-called “freely” competing entrepreneurs is thoroughly utopian. We now live in the era of “monopoly” capitalism. You can’t turn the historical clock backwards try as you may.

    And if you could, the law of value in capitalist economics (expand or die and eat up your competition before they eat you up) has an internal logic that would only lead back to a monopoly form within a relatively short period of time.

    Large corporations and the class of people who run and benefit from them eventually control the whole political system; they make and enforce all the rules under the guise of there being some sort of democracy.

    “On one hand it is human nature that no significant medical breakthroughs would happen in the future if all areas of healthcare are carried out by government bureaucrats.”

    You are correct about the role of “government bureaucrats” as impediments to progress, but very wrong about human nature.

    Human nature is not something set in stone; it is a very malleable process that historically responds to and develops within the social context that nurtures it.

    There are millions of people in the world that would love the opportunity (if provided the necessary resources) to invent things and discover important advances in science to help human kind eliminate unnecessary suffering. They are not, and would not have be motivated by the desire to be rich and powerful.

    The current system we live under actually holds back this process of discovery because all these necessary resources are only available to a select few, and their ideas are geared to what may be profitable in the market place; not necessarily what will benefit all of humanity.

    So I say, “regulating Big Pharma” is like asking Dracula to suck water instead of blood. Why do we need to have a “Big Pharma” anyway, and why do we even need insurance companies that siphon off 20 to 30% of the profits thereby raising healthcare costs by almost a third?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Maria

    You have done a penetrating analysis of how monopoly capitalism works within the pharmaceutical industry.

    This only reaffirms for me why we will never have equal and universal access to safe and compassionate medical care as long as the profit motive is the guiding principle underlying the development of medicine and science.

    For those who criticize having too much regulation (of a genuine nature) as somehow holding back the advance of new discoveries, you either ignore or can’t see that the capitalist law of value and the “expand or die” nature of the current system has an underlying logic of its own that must put profit before people and life itself.

    These Big Pharma CEO’s are not by nature “bad people”; they act badly because they are mere instruments of this law of value. If they don’t the follow capitalist logic, or do it well enough, they will soon be replaced by new leadership when the profit margin of their corporation falls below acceptable levels and they fear being eaten up by their rivals. This is the true essence of “survival of the fittest.”

    We will all remain victims until we understand how this system really works, and then rise up and do something about it. Maria, thanks for the lesson in corporate economics.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    I read your draft of a new law; it is very interesting and contains some powerful ideas and words. Your efforts are noble.

    A bill such as this could only be passed coming at the heels of a powerful mass movement. We are only at the early stages of such a movement.

    The civil rights bill in the 60’s only passed after the development of significant mass upheaval, including after multiple urban rebellions that shook the country to its foundation.

    That movement began and spread through a series of individual struggles and actions that each had their own character and significance.

    Perhaps the Justina Pelletier case could have part of that significance for our movement. We have to start small and grow from there. We all have much work to do.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sinead

    Thanks for the additional information.

    I have a suggestion for how you might approach the Globe. Two years ago when Patricia Wen wrote the series on the “Other Welfare” I wrote her at her Globe e-mail address ([email protected]). I praised part of her series but then sharply criticized her article for leaving out the role of the pharmaceutical corporations and of Biological Psychiatry in creating the conditions for poor people to use disability benefits as a substitute for welfare. I said this would result in more attacks on the poor for trying to find creative ways to survive and shift focus away from the real criminals at the top of this pyramid.

    She was so upset that I insinuated that this series might lead to more attacks on the poor that she sent me her cell phone number and insisted that we talk on the phone. We had a long interesting exchange on the whole issue and she accepted part of my position.

    I do believe her series was overall positive in exposing aspects of the Pelletier case; let’s start there. So if you approach her from the perspective that she is leaving out some vital information that may end up misinforming the readership and harming the family she may be very interested in talking with you directly. Give it a try; your inside information needs to be more broadly disseminated. Keep up the struggle.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Just to clarify where I’m coming from on this issue. I am a billion miles in the opposite direction of Glenn Beck and his ilk.

    I think it is sad situation when the radical right is the leading voice at this time in championing this particular cause; I am deathly afraid of the direction they would take this struggle or any struggle for that matter. I do believe in the course of protracted struggle many people on the right wing can and will be won away from that outlook.

    For those who would come at fighting Biological Psychiatry from a different direction: we have a lot of work to do.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sinead

    Thanks for all the background information on this case. I have missed your voice at MIA in the recent period. It is very apparent that you have taken big risks in challenging the establishment in this case and speaking out publicly here at MIA. Your actions and courage are much appreciated.

    Question: What about the role of Patricia Wen at the Globe who authored the three part series that came out last week? You make no mention of her involvement in this case. Have you communicated with her?

    Ted and Sinead, I live an hour south of Boston and plan on coming to the Jan 10th demonstration that was mentioned earlier. I will discuss this with other activists that I know in this region to see if we can gather a contingent.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan Keyes

    You raise a very good question. Despite the overall strength of Biological Psychiatry today I believe that the psychiatric profession, as a whole, is increasingly on the defensive having been wounded by the survivor/ activist movement, and MIA is a big part of this.

    Many psychiatrists are aware that there are some serious ethical and scientific flaws in their profession and they fear it could crumble apart at some point in the future. So in response to this situation they are definitely interested in criticizing the most egregious violations within psychiatry because it makes them look bad and threatens their very existence. But at the same time they are fearful of a thorough going evaluation of the entire paradigm of treatment in the mental health system; they are afraid the revolution might go to far. This happens in every social/political movement.

    For those enamored with the power and prestige of their profession and afraid of radical change, they believe they have too much to lose if things go too far. In response to this situation some of them will attempt to join with the survivor/activist movement to try and tone things down and lead it into a more reformist direction. That is, only want to change the most obvious and extreme forms of oppression and ethical violations. They are deathly afraid of a total dismantling of the mental health system in this country and around the world.

    Those who lean toward reformism will want to avoid too much confrontation and move very slowly in challenging the status quo. They will push people in the direction of trying to work more within the system and change legislation, and act as a pressure group on liberal politicians. This would be a dead end for our movement. We must be on guard against those who would attempt to hijack our movement.

    A minority of dissident psychiatrists can be united with, and others can and will change, but it will require principled and vigorous struggle. Back in the 60’s right wing critics of the antiwar movement would yell at us “Love it or Lose it!” We would yell back at them “Change it or Lose it!” This same approach can be taken toward psychiatrists today. If they don’t rise up and overthrow the Biological Psychiatry wing of their profession then their entire profession may end up in the dust bin of history.

    If all new psychiatric drug prescriptions were stopped today there would at least be 20 years of valuable work necessary to help people taper off of and learn to live without psychiatric drugs. Radical and dissident psychiatrists could play an important role in this process as well as completely redefine the nature of their work in the coming decades. After that, who knows.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Skybluesight

    Jonathan is a very positive contributor to MIA. If you read his past blog and click on his name in the comment section you can read all of his past comments for evaluation.

    I do not believe his intent is to silence all negative opinion or weaken the role and impact of MIA. Jonathan is one of us. I do believe his fears regarding the pointed criticisms of Dr. Ragins are misguided. You are correct that if everyone adopted the approach of softening the nature of the debate and discourse here at MIA that this would definitely weaken our struggle.

    I do believe overall in the principle of “civil discourse.” BUT I believe that we have to hold certain participants at MIA to a higher standard based on their social role in world, or in this case their role in the mental health system. Some participants here with high status in the mental health field could try to coopt our movement by diluting our message and lead things in a more reformist direction.

    Some people may also try to barge in here at MIA in a very arrogant and unconscious manner defending themselves and Biological Psychiatry inflaming people along the way. This has been Dr. Ragins’ role so far. I believe he deserved to be sharply criticized. I make a huge distinction between Dr. Ragins’ role and that of Jonathan. I wish I could sit down with Jonathan for a long discussion; maybe this can happen in the near future. I live near Boston.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    I have made two responses to this entire blog, and I am the person who used the term “grandiosity” to describe part of Dr. Ragins’ approach to prescribing psychiatric drugs. I used other terms such as “hubris” (excessive self-confidence and arrogance) as a further descriptive term.

    I would welcome any feedback that showed where this was an improper use of these terms or didn’t accurately portray the content of Dr. Ragins’ blog. Please reread part of his blog where he brags about his 90% and 80% percent success rate to see if the word “grandiosity” does not apply. I believe I gave him very constructive feedback pointing out exactly what he does in his writing to inflame and turn off his readers and what he desperately needs to change in order to be taken seriously at MIA.

    Yes, this was sharp criticism, but sometimes this kind of pointed feedback is necessary in the learning process. This is especially true given how provocative and baiting his choice of words and concepts are in comparison to other writers at MIA.

    Compare Dr. Ragins to Dr. Sandra Steingard. Dr. Steingard prescribes psychiatric drugs but she shares her deepest emotional and scientific moral dilemmas in doing so. She responds to almost every commenter, and when they are angry she acknowledges their pain and anger and validates their experience before she might challenge their viewpoint. She displays not a scintilla of arrogance or excessive self-confidence in her role as a prescriber. What doctor truly in touch with reality could be excessively arrogant prescribing these drugs in today’s world. Sandra has earned all the respect she receives.

    I have raised serious questions on MIA with Sandra in the past but I have never been disrespectful or saw the need to be sharp in my criticisms. Dr. Ragins is in a league of his own. We have not had a writer since Dr. Moffic who has been at his level of such an “in your face” defense of Biological Psychiatry masquerading as some how being “progressive” or supportive.

    Jonathan, I am not a survivor but I have worked in community mental health (as a therapist/counselor) for over 20 years. I have worked with perhaps two dozen psychiatrists in that period. I have seen first hand the take over of Biological Psychiatry and the medical model and the damage it does on a daily basis. I am sickened by it and confront my own moral dilemma every day I work there.

    Despite all this I do not consider myself “anti-psychiatry” but I proudly state that I am “anti Biological Psychiatry.” I do believe we can unite with dissident psychiatrists and other activists in the mental health field with a strategy of “unite all who can be united” to completely dismantle the mental health system in this country. We can’t succeed at this if we don’t single out and sharply criticize particularly vile defenses of Biological Psychiatry. I stand by my words.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Advice to Dr. Ragins: I have read all your blog postings and most of your comments, and I would be totally amazed if you told me that you had spent more than one minute reading the MIA website before posting here.

    So I am advising you to: 1) Do your homework, and 2) Try to find some humility. I am not talking about false humility. I am talking about humility based on a rigorous scientific evaluation of the state of your profession, including a cost/benefit analysis of prescribing psychiatric drugs. That analysis should include the many postings at MIA by articulate psychiatric survivors and other dissident doctors and activists in the mental health field.

    Even a partial reading and acceptance of a critical analysis of modern psychiatry found at MIA should lead any one working in the field to acknowledge that the scientific and philosophical foundation of the psychiatric profession is on extremely shaky ground. And that anyone prescribing psychiatric drugs today is literally “flying by the seat of their pants.” That prescribing these drugs is fraught with so many scientific and ethical contradictions that only a fool would profess extreme confidence at the content of their prescribing methods.

    There are other doctors who successfully write at MIA and still prescribe psychiatric drugs who at least express some humility regarding the conflicting ethics related to this activity, and they share how they are morally wrangling over these troubling questions. You reveal none of this.

    Dr. Ragins, in contrast, you come to MIA with enormous hubris(excessive self-confidence and arrogance) and grandiosity regarding your gifted ability to prescribe psychiatric drugs. For example, you started this blog by making note of your past 90% success rate in the hospital and 80% success rate in the a clinic at finding the right drug regimen for a patient or tweaking someone’s prescriptions so that their “suffering” was relieved.

    Dr. Ragins, critical psychiatry 101 would tell any critically thinking doctor that patient improvement can often be illusionary or very time limited due to the brains constant tendency to seek homeostasis and make compensatory changes pushing back against the effects of perturbing neurotransmitter systems. So, if in fact some of your patients did feel better before leaving treatment, the important questions to ask is: for how long and at what price?

    Dr. Ragins, another vital question to ask is: TODAY, WHERE ARE ALL THOSE 90% AND 80% SUCCESS STORIES YOU BRAGGED ABOUT. Following your hubris about your past successful prescribing ability, you then complain that today’s prescribing environment, including today’s patients are so much more complicated and things ain’t so easy any more.

    Dr. Ragins, I’d like to posit a theory for why today things are so much more difficult when prescribing psychiatric drugs. Perhaps, all those patients that you and your contemporaries started on antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazapines have now undergone many years of the brain’s compensatory changes(I mentioned above) in response to each category of drug.

    Perhaps those on antipsychotics have shrunken brains and amassed extra D2 dopamine receptors that have now become supersensitive leading to breakthrough psychosis and creating a desire to add stimulants and other dopamine enhancers to compensate for the brain deadening effects of the drugs. Perhaps these patients now comprise the statistics that Harrow, Wunderlick, and Whitaker discuss when describing those now “chronic” patients whose global functioning has deteriorated and have settled into a prolonged state of disability.

    Perhaps those on antidepressants now have fewer serotonin receptors in their brains and other structural changes noted by Dr. Peter Breggin and others, and now are part of the statistics of those people with the condition of Tardive Dsyphoria.

    Perhaps those started on benzodazapines have become hopelessly dependent and addicted to drugs that possibly permanently alter Gaba receptors in the brain leaving many people feeling like emotional cripples.

    Dr. Ragins why do you not make reference to any of these potential problems with psychiatric drug prescribing or your role in it? Perhaps some of these long term negative effects of psychiatric drugs might explain why things are so much tougher today. Do you even acknowledge this possibility?

    Dr. Ragins, your problems at MIA are not because you prescribe psychiatric drugs or that you have some different views than other people writing at MIA. Instead, it is your hubris and grandiosity.

    We do not need any more “condescending (warrior) saviors” or Dr. Feelgoods. If you hold on to these qualities you will continue to have a tough time here. Please do some homework and work on humility. You may have something to offer our struggle, but we may never get to it unless you are willing to make some changes. If you do write again I look forward to something very different.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • This entire blog reads like a sad lament for a return to the “good ole days.” A time when things were more simple, less complicated. A time when we had state hospitals and back wards where psychiatry had the power and control to keep patients for weeks and months at one time. A time when psychiatrists could be “all powerful warriors” with unfettered ability to drug people into submission, removing all their symptoms and truly ending all their “suffering.”

    Unlike today, when things are so much more complicated because we now are aware of the great costs and harm done by psychiatric drugs (of which there was not a single reference made within in this blog) and we have a survivor/activist movement shaking the status quo of Biological Psychiatry and making life more difficult for their “business as usual.”

    I, myself, long for the “good ole days” at Mad in America when we had the likes of Dr. Steven Moffic to contend with. It was a more simple and straight forward defense of Biological Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Philip

    This was great article that was written with great clarity and punch. This will clearly provide more ammunition in our fight against Biological Psychiatry.

    Question: do you have a referenced statistic that says how many children in one of the recent years has been written a prescription for so called antipsychotic drugs? I believe I saw one statistic that stated it was about 500,000 children a year. I need this for an Op Ed piece I am currently working on. Thanks in advance.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Andrew

    This was a great socio-political analysis of the current conditions in community mental health in this country since Biological Psychiatry took control over the last 20 years. I have worked that many years in one clinic and have been a witness to all that you describe.

    Most importantly, it is a devastating critique of the social role these clinics now play in managing and controlling the more oppressed and volatile sections of the populations.

    In the 60’s when I became politically alive many people from the “under classes” were quite active and militant, and played a key role in advancing the movement at the that time.

    Today, many young people from that strata, who otherwise might be springing to political activism, are now being labeled and drugged into oblivion.

    The social role that Biological Psychiatry plays is quite useful to the ruling classes by turning people’s attention away from our “diseased” institutions and to, instead, focus people on “genetic theories of original sin” and individual struggles for survival.

    Everyday is a battle working in community mental health; it is filled with tiny victories and major moral dilemmas that can explode at any moment in to a situation where we are defending people from harm and, at the same time, fighting to preserve our job. We all have much work to in this struggle.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Faith and All

    As someone who has worked 20 years in community mental health as a therapist and as a huge critic of Biological Psychiatry, I would like to chime in a bit on these important questions.

    Over the 20 years I have witnessed the gradual take over of these clinics by this oppressive model of treatment; it has been a painful and crazy making experience. This takeover so thoroughly dominates almost every aspect of how people are treated that it raises serious ethical questions of how to respond when working on the “inside.”

    Yes, there are many dedicated people working in these clinics who are clearly helping many people. However, given the growing number of people treated by community mental health clinics who are put on psychiatric drugs (sometimes 7 or more prescriptions at one time) it has now reach a critical mass where one might make the serious argument that there is “more harm than good” taking place inside these clinics.

    There desperately needs to be an organized movement of radical activists on the “outside” taking strong actions (targeted demonstrations and education exposing Biological Psychiatry) in order to shake the walls of the establishment and create more favorable conditions for radical change within. WITHOUT THIS MOVEMENT WE WILL REMAIN “VOICES IN THE WILDERNESS” WHO WILL BE COOPTED, MARGINALIZED, ISOLATED, ELIMINATED, OR PUSHED OVER THE EDGE INTO DEMORALIZATION OR INSANITY.

    We need an approach of “walking on two legs”; where both the “inside” and “outside” work is both strengthening and complimenting the other; this makes it more difficult for the “powers that be” to push us to the margins or demoralize us into quitting. It’s much better “to burn out in battle” fighting for our principles than to “fade away.”

    One example, I recently worked with a seasoned therapist (someone who works with those with the schizophrenic label) to present the Eleanor Longden video (The Voices in My Head) at a team meeting for our entire staff (30 therapist and 3 psychiatrists). This was combined with some print outs that challenge the medical model and the current standard of treatment involving so-called antipsychotic drugs. There was a spirited discussion that followed and very defensive reactions by one psychiatrist. We held our own and then some dealing with these hot topics. The staff found it stimulating and challenging. I was amazed how this seasoned therapist, whom I had thought was not a critical thinker and somewhat jaded over the years, enthusiastically took up this topic. She was quoting the Wunderlick study and speaking out strongly against the medical model.

    I constantly pass out key articles criticizing Biological Psychiatry to people working in the clinic, including the doctors. Some doctors are receptive and actually share their dismay at the those prescribers engaged in the more obvious examples of poly-pharmacy at our agency.

    This “inside” activism is not easy to do and I have had some conflicts with the administration on several occasions. I plan to increase this type of resistance on the “inside” which most definitely involves more risks of being fired. I have found that I cannot live with myself if I don’t dare to take these risks. The moral dilemmas working in these environments are very intense and are constantly in a state of flux. We need the support of other activists (in collectively organized groups) to be able to successfully negotiate these “uncharted waters.”

    The stakes are high for the increasing number of victims of this system and for those working to make change within it. We all have much work to do. “Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!” “There is no victory without risk.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Chrys

    Just to clarify my above posting. My criticism of Dr. Ragin’s approach to prescribing psychiatric drugs was NOT the fact that he was giving these drugs to his patients. Some people may want or need some type of drug at this time in our history in order to deal with extreme forms of psychological distress. After all, even if all new psychiatric drug prescriptions were stopped today there would, by necessity, be many years of sophisticated tapering regimes that would have to be developed and perfected to help those people who are now dependent on these drugs.

    My issue was with the doctor’s hubris and over confidence that he (or any doctor for that matter) could possibly know what is a truly safe and ethical way to prescribe these types of drugs at this stage in history. Given all the scientific distortions promoted by Biological Psychiatry we know so very little about how these drugs affect the brain in the long term. I believe we can say with some confidence that they cause more harm than good. Testimony from almost all MIA writers bears this out.

    So yes, doctors need to be struggling to be more ethical in their approach and write about it. However, I believe it should come with a FAR greater sense of humility and caution, and a willingness to admit just how much ignorance and helplessness we should all be feeling about these difficult questions.

    Biological Psychiatry cannot be reformed or refined; it needs to be dismantled. I have not yet been convinced that Dr. Ragin is trying to work outside this paradigm of so-called treatment.

    I stated above that I had many problems with Dr. Ragin’s posting starting with the first sentence. So now let’s take a look at part of his second sentence:

    “3) I try to resist responding to various self destructive motivations of my patients (hopefully without becoming too judgmental and pejorative of their “medication abusing”, “manipulative”,
    “sabotaging” desires.”

    I am trying to “resist” being too sarcastic or “judgmental” in my response, but this use of language to describe people with this level of psychological distress is reflective of incredible arrogance and ignorance.

    It is precisely Biological Psychiatry’s ability to seize upon and expand on our culture of addiction by promoting its own version of legalized drug pushing, that contributes to creating these negatively labeled symptoms (he has identified) within a very vulnerable section of the population.

    These behaviors he is describing with such negative and judgmental language are actually different types of coping mechanisms that people are forced to develop for survival purposes within a very cruel world; they are thoughts and behaviors that come out of conditions of deep trauma and pain. And they only exist in a very small segment of those people actually taking psychiatric drugs today. Where is the understanding, compassion, and empathy using this type of language?

    If there is one thing that I have learned at MIA, its that language (and especially the transformation of our language) that is so very key to making a clean break from the “old Order” and creating the “new.” The good doctor has a long way to go.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Mark

    I hope you take the time to respond to some of the writers before me, especially to Madmon whose profound story regarding the horrors Biological Psychiatry has perpetrated against her daughter is almost beyond words. She has raised some very important questions of moral stance that demand an honest response from those working within your profession.

    It is not easy for people (especially psychiatrists) working in the mental health field to post here; it requires courage, honesty, and a willingness to listen and learn. As someone once said about MIA “it is not for the faint at heart.” You might want to read some of Dr. Sandra Steingard’s postings and discussion dialogue to observe her display of these qualities.

    Posting at MIA, or participating in the discussions, requires a willingness to have our world outlook on the theory and practice regarding the inhumane treatment in the current mental health system seriously challenged. This could be emotionally painful at times for some people.

    Madmom’s willingness to share such intimate details of her own emotional and political transformation related to her daughter’s treatment by this system is exemplary; a true inspiration to us all. Mark, if you can emulate a fraction of this courage you may succeed here.

    Your first posting, “Dr. Mark and the Village” was not a good introduction at MIA. Some readers were insulted (I know I was) by your attempt to portray yourself as the “Patch Adams of Psychiatry;” someone who was sort of nerdy, funny, and could “get down” with the mentally ill. Ted Chabasinsky spoke for me when he said something to the effect “Okay your a nice guy so now tell us what you think about the important issues.”

    It came across as if you did not do any homework or investigation as to what MIA was all about. Anyone who has paid any serious attention to the content at MIA would know that most readers are keenly attuned to the issues of the power relationships between “helpers” in the field and those people needing the help, the issues of power and control especially related to forced drugging and forced treatment, alternative (more humane) forms of treatment, and most certainly the issues of the role of psychiatric drugs. As a psychiatrist writing here, to not address any of these issues in your introduction came across as deceptive and out of touch.

    I want doctors to participate here. I am not anti-psychiatry; I am anti-Biological Psychiatry. I do want to know how psychiatrists are attempting to help people in more humane ways, but I also want to know what they are doing (or willing to do) to directly challenge the oppressive paradigm of treatment that currently controls their profession and dominates the entire mental health system.

    As to this most recent posting, it comes across as still being stuck in the Biological Psychiatry paradigm with some attempts to “put lipstick on it.” Your new focus in this posting is on “medications” without addressing the broader issues of power and control. And of course your repeated emphasis on calling psychiatric drugs “medications” is just one indication that you still have one foot planted firmly in the “old order” and your just trying to dangle a few toes in the “new.” I am all for second, and even third chances if your willing to engage in the struggle to change the world to a more just and humane place.

    “Like most doctors, I feel like I prescribe medications ethically and effectively.”

    Mark, you lost me in the first sentence. I have many critical comments about this posting but I will say first: It is absolutely astonishing to me that any psychiatrist today could say they have even the slightest amount of confidence in their ability to safely prescribe psychiatric drugs at this time.

    Given the corrupt nature of drug research and testing, combined with all the current knowledge we have of damage caused by these drugs, where could possibly all this hubris and confidence come from in your ability to prescribe. Any doctor that is truly in touch with reality should be scared beyond belief and thoroughly humble when it comes to these questions. This is not reflected in your writing.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    You have also made some excellent points. Imagine if the billions of dollars spent on this bogus research were spent on figuring out how we have to change society in ways to eliminate the traumas and psychological stress that creates the very symptoms that they want to label as genetic diseases.

    Brett, I am glad you are posting here. I have always found your comments educational. Your 2013 journal article titled “The Biomedical Model of Mental Disorder” that was posted in this column earlier this year was very thorough. I had some problems with some of the wording and construction (discussion for another time) but if I were to go into battle against Biological Psychiatry this article would definitely be one of the weapons I would bring with me.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ted

    Your call for more organized resistance is important and timely.

    I have said many times at MIA that we have enough beginning numbers of activists, fighting spirit, and solid science behind us to launch significant political actions and resistance. What we have lacked is the collective political will to make it happen.

    I believe we sometimes underestimate just how favorable the current objective conditions are for such resistance. Many people in this country and around the world sense (with a gut feeling or a very beginning consciousness) that there is something very wrong with the current paradigm of so-called mental health treatment. Organized resistance would sharpen the debate and open up thousands of people for more education – “A single spark can start a prairie fire.”

    Networks of activists in different areas might be be a good start. I would not give up on the idea of a more unified broad national/international organization in the future.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Tyler

    I would not pretend that I could offer you specific solutions to the problems you mention in an internet posting. One would have to know details about your life experience,including if there was evidence of trauma or other difficult experiences and related thought patterns that cause underlying anxiety problems.

    All this would have to be combined with a full medical workup by a knowledgeable physician to rule out some type of underlying medical problem. This would have to include tests for hormonal imbalances, allergies or sensitivity to food or other things in your environment.

    Possible solutions would flow out of the above conditions, perhaps combined with consistent healthy food, exercise (perhaps including yoga and walking),daily meditation, and good sleep.

    Having faith in a good medical doctor and therapist who can coach you through this journey would be a good place to start. While internet sources of information and dialogue can be helpful, satisfactory and more complete solutions to your problems is a process that can not be fully realized in this type of forum.

    P.S. Dr. Gabor Mate wrote an excellent book on addiction and he also has a book titled: “Scattered: How Attention Deficit Disorder Originates and What You can Do About It;” it might be worth checking out.

    I wish you the best, Richard

    Report comment

  • David

    I support what you are doing and the thrust of your position on this question.

    I don’t believe in the diagnosis of ADHD but I do believe for some people a more severe presentation of the symptoms may be present. I believe it is much more connected to problems of excessive anxiety. It is not just children being children.

    What is missing from this discussion is identifying the influence of trauma on young people and the long term effects this can cause on children’s ability to concentrate and control behavior. Both witnessing or directly experiencing trauma can set off a chain reaction of very uncomfortable symptoms of distress. Psychiatric drugs are not a solution but part of the problem.

    In addition to trauma there also may be things in the environment such as toxic chemicals or allergies to certain foods or chemicals within food products that may also cause some of these symptoms.

    The ADHD diagnosis is a creation of Biological Psychiatry but some of the symptoms do exist and we need to acknowledge that and find different solutions to what the current mental health system has to offer.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ted and Hermes

    Ted, I agree (as you said above) we should decide to carry on this discussion in a different format (hopefully someday soon in person or on the phone); it is very difficult to do this in these short bursts of written responses. I hope you were able to read all three of my responses above to get a better picture of where I am coming from on this question.

    I have worked in community mental health since 1993 and I have been reading Peter Breggin and others since 1991. I have worked around more than two dozen psychiatrists in those years and have seen first hand the devastation of the Biological Psychiatry paradigm of so-called treatment.

    I have also been carefully reading the stories of psychiatric survivors at MIA for several years, and currently socialize on a regular basis with several militant activists/survivors in my area. If we had hateometer that could measure my level of hatred and disgust for how people are being treated by modern psychiatry (dominated and controlled by the Biological Psychiatry wing of the profession) I believe I would register very high on that meter, perhaps in the same range as yourself. But of course, sincerity, anger, and even hatred must be translated into organized, constructive, and focused resistance to make a real difference in the world.

    One question we are confronting is how do we build a movement that can unite the many and defeat the few; how can we create the political and social conditions for the total dismantling of the current mental health system in this country and around the world. We need to have activists working both inside and outside the system. We need an organization with the right program and set of demands that can inspire and join together people with many different firsthand experiences within the system as survivors and those who have tried to provide compassionate help actually working within a now broken and corrupt system.

    How we define ourselves and attempt to build alliances around common causes will make an enormous difference in how our movement grows and how effective we can be in the political and scientific arena.

    Most psychiatrists basically know what the difference is between Biological Psychiatry and old school psychiatry. There is a minority of psychiatrists that see the Big Pharma dominated genetic/disease based model as destroying their profession and harmful to patients. They are sympathetic to us activists but at the same time they are also fearful that we are also targeting them with psychiatric horror stories and anti-psychiatry rhetoric, and potentially threatening their ability to carry out their life’s work; many of them truly want to help people in pain.

    I don’t believe we should hold back the psychiatric horror stories; in fact we need more. However we should change the rhetoric directed at ALL psychiatrists including when we say we are “anti-psychiatry.” We CAN say the following to all psychiatrists with great confidence: “WE ARE ANTI-BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY AND YOU SHOULD BE TO” and “HERE IS WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT.”

    We need to inspire and support them (and shame may even have some role here) to raise hell and revolt within their profession by targeting the leaders of Biological Psychiatry and all their corrupt and unjust practices. In the 60’s, backward people would say to protesters “Love it or Leave it!” We would shout back at them “Change it or Lose it.”

    In essence we are saying a version of this to all the open minded psychiatrists. If you don’t act now (including more than just talking about what’s wrong) you will be complicit in your profession’s crimes, and the profession will no longer have historical relevance; and may die out or be torn asunder.

    As I stated several times above, dissident psychiatrists have an important role to play in all this and we can and must unite with them. Why paralyze them, make them defensive or even drive them back into the camp of the enemy with “anti-psychiatry” rhetoric?

    Targeting Biological Psychiatry is actually a more radical strategy (than a more ultra left approach of declaring all psychiatry as evil) because it requires the hard work of building alliances and finding common ground with people who do deep down want to reach for a higher purpose and meaning with their life, including with their own career work. And it is a more truly radical strategy because it actually has a better chance of winning in the final analysis.

    Hermes, all historical labels defining certain trends are never completely accurate when examining the individual terms. But they have to be given some name or label. Biological Psychiatry was the best that Peter Breggin could come up with at the time. As I stated above, most psychiatrists know exactly what is meant by the term “Biological Psychiatry.” Some love it because they completely believe in the both the theory and practice. Others are growing to hate it (as we do) because they can agree it harms people and is destroying their profession. We can help them more clearly see a united target for our movement and work together on similar goals.

    We can educate the masses exactly what this Biological Psychiatry model represents in the real world. We did the same in the 60’s when we called ourselves “anti-imperialist” and tried to educate people about what was happening in Viet Nam. I must point out, I was a proud member of the “anti-war movement” in the 60’s even though I was not, and still am not, against all wars. There are just wars of liberation and revolution that forward the march of history.

    I sense you were also a critic of “Sociobiology.” The specific label does not itself convey the backward content of the theory, but once we explain it to people they can understand its meaning and why they need to oppose it; the same is true of “Biological Psychiatry.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • ShrinksRoulRapists

    The term “Biological Psychiatry” was chosen by history itself to describe a certain political/scientific trend. I believe it was Peter Breggin who coined this term to describe a particular wing of the psychiatric profession that promoted genetic (biological) brain disease theories of “mental illness.” It had to named something and this was the best name he could come up with at the time.

    These “genetic theories of original sin” minimize or completely ignore environmental causes (trauma etc.) and focus peoples attention only on a person’s biology.

    There is nothing wrong with the word “biology” per se. To be critical of Biological Psychiatry is not to deny the role of biology. Yes, of course “biology” and biological processes are involved in human thought and behavior.

    Other names given to certain historical trends do not always make sense when examining each individual word separately. For example, “national socialism” has been used at times to refer to German Fascism. Any scientific evaluation of the word “socialism” would clearly show that the Nazi economy in Germany was clearly an extreme form of monopoly capitalism and had no relationship to socialist forms of economic structure.

    Also the term “Socio-biology” was the name given to a political/scientific trend in the 1960’s that was promoted in books such as the “Naked Ape” by Konrad Lorenz. These were an earlier version of genetic theories that promoted a view that human society could never rise above war and violence because we were genetically programed by our genes similar to other primates in the animal world. These theories emerged as a counter weight to the powerful movement in the 60’s against the imperialist war in Viet Nam; a movemnent that shook the status quo to its very foundations.

    Of course there is nothing wrong per se with the prefix “socio” or the word “biologist” but it just came to be that the term “Socio-biologist” was used to describe the leaders of this reactionary trend.

    We all have much work to do in educating people about these backward and oppressive historical trends and why they must be exposed and targeted.

    Knowing who our potential allies are and what our targets need to be are critical decisions in any successful political movement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • ssenerch and Ted

    I agree with many of your criticisms regarding the medical legitimacy of psychiatry. However the fact remains that today there is a minority of psychiatrists who are providing positive care for people experiencing extreme emotional distress.

    Many of these vulnerable people are receiving essential support by a prescribing physician who is helping them detoxify from dangerous and addictive psychotropic drugs. Progressive, dissident, and radical psychiatrists can play an important role in this process in the coming years. We need their knowledge and care coming from their unique position as a legal prescriber.

    Should we just condemn them all as fakes and target them as the enemy? What do you want these doctors to do? Do you want to demoralize them and just have them drop out and do something else?

    These same doctors have the potential to dramatically shake up and actually split the profession of psychiatry currently dominated by Biological Psychiatry. Why not inspire and support them in leading a rebellion within their profession?

    We need to narrow our target and “unite all who can be united” aiming our struggle clearly and resolutely against Biological Psychiatry. Let’s support this minority in exposing and isolating this reactionary brain disease/drug based paradigm of treatment; a paradigm that they are both ashamed of and embarrassed by its domination of their profession.

    I have no problem saying that Biological Psychiatry as an historical trend needs to be defeated, eliminated, wiped out or might we say conquered, and then placed in a museum next to racism, patriarchy and all the other oppressive human social entities.

    Dissident psychiatrists can play an important role in this. Has anyone ever heard of a strategy called “Divide and Conquer?” It has been used against the oppressed for several thousand years. There are aspects of this approach that can be strategically used in our movement to advance our cause.

    If we come out as “anti-psychiatry” instead of “anti-Biological Psychiatry” we will be pushed to the fringes and limit our ability to unite broadly with people.

    Ssenerch and Ted, after revolutionary change takes place in the world I don’t know what will or should happen to the profession of psychiatry. In the course of future social upheavals many of the old institutions will be thoroughly examined and evaluated for their value in creating a whole new world of more humane social relations. Let’s give this transformative process a chance to develop before we foolishly condemn all psychiatrists to the dust bin of history and limit our ability to attract more allies to our movement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ted

    I share the militancy of your sentiments in this blog but I’d like to offer an important amendment to your position.

    Strategically it makes much more sense to refer to our movement as being “anti-Biological Psychiatry” not anti-psychiatry; let me explain.

    Forty years ago a seizure of power began where psychiatry and the entire mental health system in the U.S. and then throughout most parts of the world was gradually taken over by the Biological Psychiatry wing of the psychiatric profession.

    Biological Psychiatry represents the wedding of genetic and biological/diseased based theories of “mental illness” with the pharmaceutical corporations colluding at the highest levels with the American Psychiatric Association and the major training institutions for modern psychiatry. They conducted a successful strategy of resurrecting their profession and expanding their power base while at the same time maximizing profits. Whitaker’s “Anatomy of an Epidemic” explains many of the details of this takeover and exposes some of the disastrous and oppressive results affecting millions of people around the world. Many here at MIA have personally lived through and been damaged by this tragic history.

    BTW, I always capitalize “Biological Psychiatry” as I would any other major reactionary and oppressive political/cultural movement or trend in the world; it needs to be highlighted as a particular entity (not just a theory) in and of itself.

    Yes, psychiatry has always had fundamental problems with both its theoretical foundations and its historical day to day practice in the world, but the Biological Psychiatry takeover represents a major transformative and all encompassing shift in power and overall backward direction of the profession.

    There is a small minority of psychiatrists today who are sickened and outraged by this takeover and the current state of their profession. IT WOULD BE WRONG AND A HUGE STRATEGIC MISTAKE to alienate radical, dissident, and other critically thinking psychiatrists such as Peter Breggin, Peter Stastny, Sandra Steingard etc, and many others (including several who write here at MIA) by saying “you and your profession no longer have a right to exist;” or that as a psychiatrist “there is no way you can play a positive role in transforming the forms of care for people in serious psychological distress.”

    This simply is not true. Radical and other dissident psychiatrists (even if only a small minority at this time) could play a very important role in our movement and we need them as much as they need us; we are all in this together.

    If a revolution were to occur tomorrow and the entire mental health system was dismantled and new radical forms of care were developed and promoted throughout the country and beyond, there would still be at least 20 years of critically important work necessary to help the millions of people on psychiatric drugs find the safest ways to taper and detox themselves, or somehow minimize the dangers if they can’t fully taper off. Knowledgeable and compassionate psychiatrists could play a positive role in this.

    Also, we need to unite with this minority of psychiatrists to help support and encourage them to wreak havoc within their profession by finding every way possible to expose the corrupt and dangerous nature of Biological Psychiatry in both its theory and practice. Imagine them inside their conferences and professional gatherings raising hell internally while survivors and other dissidents in the mental health field are on the outside shaking the walls.

    I am suggesting a winning strategy of “Uniting All Who Can Be United” around this radical approach. Labeling ourselves “anti-psychiatry” instead of “anti-Biological Psychiatry” limits our ability to build our movement broadly by winning over many potential allies, including some people who are currently standing on the side lines; some who may currently view us as operating on the fringes unable to unite the many to defeat the few.

    If we truly believe we are morally on the correct side of history and that we have a substantial number of activists and enough real science on our side for the beginnings of critical resistance, then why can’t we win over significantly more numbers of people to our movement, including more psychiatrists? How we choose to label ourselves at this time could have a decisive effect on the future success of our movement. Let’s make sure we are being strategically correct in these important decisions.

    Ted, more food for thought and discussion. I respect your experience and passion and hope you see this as an attempt to raise the level of our discourse in our movement.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Ron

    I really appreciate you writing this review and agree with the thrust of your critique. I also appreciate the fact that you provided more quotes from Eleanor Longden’s new book which only deepens our understanding of her TED talk on voice hearing.

    I have worked over 20 years helping people with addictions in a community mental health setting. In a somewhat different area of work with “voices” I focus some attention on helping people confront their “addiction voice.” (for those interested you can read part three of my past blog at MIA titled “Confronting the Addiction Voice on the Road to Recovery”).

    Similar to the point you are making about ACT’s approach, there are some times, especially in an early and very vulnerable stage of recovery, where it is necessary to just “thought block” when your “addiction voice”(a voice that every addict is familiar with) is tempting you with engaging in the addictive behavior. This tactic can be necessary and successful in the short run, but in the long run merely using “thought blocking” as a strategy for abstinence will not sustain itself and people will often relapse.

    Eventually people will be forced to engage with their “addiction voice” because it can be unrelenting and pervasive as it is so often triggered by multiple associations related to the addictive behavior in one’s surrounding environment.

    So in order for people to break the addictive pattern, they will need to learn more about the specific content of “excuses” and “justifications” that their “addiction voice” uses to convince them to continue the dysfunctional behavior. And most importantly, they will need to learn to talk back to their “addiction voice” and consistently and permanently defeat it in on going internal arguments.

    As people gain more time and confidence in their recovery, especially by strengthening overall coping mechanisms, the “addiction voice” will be heard much less frequently and will be more easily put in its place when encountered. Through this process people will eventually lose their fear of the “addiction voice” and learn to accept its occasional presence in their life experience.

    So with addictions, just ignoring or distracting oneself from the “addiction voice,” may not be a successful strategy of achieving recovery and defeating addictive behaviors. And while this may be somewhat different than other forms of voice hearing, I believe there are some parallels in viewing this issue relative to your critique of ACT.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    Thanks for your encouraging feedback. One of the major headings at MIA is the word “Community.” Meeting with Chrys in Scotland and dialoging with you over this past year certainly feels like a growing sense of a community of activists with common goals and dreams of a more humane world in the future. We need each others support and encouragement, and occasionally we need to kick each other in the ass when necessary.

    I believe we need to take our growing “community” to a higher level, that is, beyond just blogs and public exposure (which is very important) to the level of more organized resistance.

    Challenging the status quo is certainly not without its risks, but morally how can we remain silent or not take more direct action in the material world?

    Part of these risks includes building organization to consolidate and guide our struggle. Such organization is not easy to build because there are the risks of being attacked by the “powers that be” and also there are the risks of disagreement, disunity, ego struggles etc. within our ranks.

    These latter fears of internal strife can sometimes make people avoid organization; these fears, if not overcome, actually limit what we will be able to accomplish in the coming period.

    I believe we have enough numbers of activists, commonality of goals, and solid science behind us at this time to start the process, BUT we currently lack the collective political will to make it happen now. So when I use the phrase “let’s do it”, this what I am trying to emphasize.

    Dare to struggle, Dare to win!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    Thanks for responding and being such an unrelenting critic of Biological Psychiatry. We come from different ends of the political spectrum but I’m sure there will be many opportunities in the near future to struggle for deeper unity as we increase the intensity of our push back against this oppressive psychiatric system.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Larmac

    My deepest condolences for the loss of your son. You have every right to be angry at the mental health system, for it clearly failed your family’s attempt to get the help your son needed.

    I have worked over 20 years in community mental health, with a specialty in addictions, and have seen the damage done by the take over of Biological Psychiatry and their medical model.

    My work in addictions leads me to believe that some people are very sensitive to pot (THC) and its other properties. There is clear evidence of it being a precipitating factor in depression, psychosis, and possibly what gets labeled as mania.

    The Norwegian study did NOT include pot (THC) in its study. This is interesting because Wikipedia states that pot(THC) can be classified as a stimulant, depressant, and a psychedelic. Apparently some people believe it can manifest itself with all three types of symptom presentation.

    My anecdotal experience with interviewing people over 20 years is that pot clearly has a paranoid edge to it, increases anxiety over time as well as a chronic state of depression. These symptoms can come on so slowly and subtly that people don’t connect these symptoms to the actual use of the pot; they just believe their life is going bad. And many young people smoke it a lot more than they admit to or we think they are; for many it can be “all day, every day.” And they say it is 15-18 times stronger than it was in the 60’s.

    Today’s psychiatrist are not trained in addiction and look at their patients through an entirely different prism. Even if you mention drug use they tend to believe these substance are only unmasking an underlying brain disease. And even if they believe that substance abuse may be involved the only help they tend to provide is psychotropic drugs; drugs that will only magnify the existing problems and introduce a whole set of new symptomology related to these dangerous legal drugs.

    Larmac, you and your family have a very powerful story. I hope you become more educated and continue to speak out against this oppressive system so that we can all save potential new victims in the future. All the best.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Stephen

    You are one of my favorite writers at MIA and I usually connect with and agree with most of your positions.

    While I am not a survivor, we both share a common experience of working within the system (I am a counselor in community mental health) and have to deal with (on almost a daily basis) the moral dilemmas related to the harm being done by Biological Psychiatry. You have great courage putting your job at risk in your role speaking out so forcefully at MIA and among your co-workers.

    I am one of the people who has been critical of parts of Dr. Shipko’s analysis in his blog. I don’t believe my criticisms were based on fear or some type of “denial” of the essence of his message. Nor do I think I was discounting or rejecting the experiences of survivors who have first hand experience with SSRIs.

    Do you have any reaction to my two part response earlier that questions his position on “Informed Consent” (prescribing SSRIs and Benzos) and the possible role that Benzos may play in protracted SSRI withdrawal?

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • John

    I agree with your main points in this particular posting and we share similar views on the entirety of this topic so far.

    However, I think that the phenomena of akathisia as a side effect of psychiatric drugs is more than just extreme anxiety. The feeling of wanting to “crawl out of your own skin” combined with a level of discomfort leading to continuous pacing or inability to sit for even short periods of time, must most likely have some type of neurological component related to a drug effect. I have seen people behave this way and also had the symptoms described to me many times. I am not saying it represents permanent damage or will not subside over time.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hermes

    You make some excellent points. Others have written about short term Benzo use in a hospital to help with acute psychosis instead of neuroleptics. This would be much more humane.

    What did you think of my two part response below on informed consent and the possibility that Benzo prescriptions may actually be a causative factor in SSRI post withdrawal problems?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Now on to Part 2, addressing the ethical contradiction and mixed message in Dr. Shipko’s posting regarding the prescribing of Benzos, and how this may, in some ways, be connected to the actual problem of prolonged symptoms in post SSRI use.

    Dr. Shipko states the following in reference to helping people deal with SSRI post withdrawal symptoms:

    “Outside of using a benzodiazepine. I don’t have a lot of suggestions …Benzodiazepines seem to offer some relief, but they are dependency-forming and if taken regularly result in another dependency.”

    So there you have it, Benzo prescriptions may actually be a PRECIPITATING FACTOR in the unrelenting nature of post SSRI withdrawal problems.

    Dr. Shipko does not specifically say if he prescribes Benzos in this situation (I have asked him twice before and received no response) but he implies that he does by stating “outside of using benzodiazepines…” and “Benzodiazepines seem to offer some relief….”

    So it may be true that many of his patients with persistent symptomology are receiving Benzos for some
    period of time. Now this becomes a whole new factor to be considered in understanding the phenomena of post SSRI withdrawal and must be ruled out as perhaps an additional causative element in this whole process.

    Whether or not Dr. Shipco prescribes Benzos is not critical to my argument here. I am sure many psychiatrists (or even most) do prescribe Benzos when a patient complains about the intense nature of anxiety experienced in post SSRI withdrawal. I believe most psychiatrists do not understand the emotionally crippling nature of these drugs or the serious problems with Benzo withdrawal that could even exceed that of SSRIs. However, Benzos are more than just addictive with withdrawal symptoms.

    As a counselor and a non prescriber of drugs, I must admit that I have not been faced with the difficult ethical decision of whether or not to prescribe a drug (like a Benzo) that I know will provide short term relief to a human being in a desperate state of emotional discomfort. For example, I am sure I would absolutely consider short term prescriptions to a distraught parent whose child just died or some other similar scenarios. But clearly I would rarely (if ever) exceed a 3-4 week prescription.

    However, as a counselor I have had several people literally beg me to convince their doctor to prescribe Benzos to help them manage their anxiety. All of them had prior experience with a Benzo (got them from a friend or bought them in the street) and found them very effective. I did my best in those situations to educate them about short term vs. long term consequences (including the truth about how Xanax received FDA approval). But my attempts at education (no matter how deep I go) usually does not stop repeated pleading requests.

    Here in lies the problem, Benzos ARE extremely effective in most cases in lessening severe anxiety in the SHORT RUN (perhaps no drug is better at this). After 3-4 weeks this effectiveness starts to reverse itself unless higher doses of the drug are used.

    My experience in working with people and reading about other people’s experiences tells me the following: Benzos, overall, undermine a person’s own natural coping skills/mechanisms by causing a kind of atrophy as the person relies more and more on an external pill to manage strong internal discomfort. Confidence in their ability to manage strong emotions or other stressors in their environment are eroded; they feel weak and vulnerable and are susceptible to major anxiety symptoms. And in Part 1 of this posting I made reference to the dialectical connection of these feelings to depression.

    One psychiatrist Dr. Andre Drummond, who has written extensively on anxiety problems, states (counter intuitively), that people with “anxiety disorders” are the LAST people who should be prescribed Benzos. It tends to make their problems worse. He further devoted an entire chapter in one of his books describing a phenomena he calls “The Benzo Blues,” which is a condition of depression developing out of prolonged Benzo use. And I stated in a previous posting that Benzos set people up for having on going periods of crisis interrupted by occasional periods of relative stability.

    Does any of this sound familiar to what people describe about post SSRI withdrawal symptoms? And are Benzos part of the solution, or in fact, part of the problem with this drug withdrawal phenomena. Of course there is no one answer to this problem. These symptoms are most certainly multifactorial and individual and unique to each person’s life circumstance and personal history.

    And in a previous posting I raised the other concern about alcohol and pot being used by some people as a form of self-medication with these uncomfortable SSRI withdrawal symptoms; BTW ethyl-alcohol is also in the same family of sedative-hypnotics as is Benzos and may have similar results.

    (Warning) So we might speculate that after a period of prolonged “emotional numbing” caused by SSRI use that when they are removed from someone’s system or reduced in dose, and as real human feelings and emotions start returning, there is a period of “supersensitivity” or “emotional overwhelm” (as Breggin calls it) as raw receptors are slowly (or suddenly) flooded with new sensations. This most likely feels extremely uncomfortable or intolerable as people negotiate a difficult life (including the problems their depression brought on) and now gets expressed in depressed moods and perhaps even higher forms of anxiety.

    Now in desperation a person asks for help and doctors not understanding or knowing what to do (many should know better) they start prescribing Benzos as a last resort. Perhaps, if other supports and forms of healing were accessed and somehow people could hold on through this difficult withdrawal process then improvement or transformation could be at the end of this journey. But, when and if, Benzos are prescribed to such a person in this journey this could actually create the conditions for “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.”

    So once again I have to ask: If a doctor is aware of the risk/benefit ratio discussed above, as it relates to Benzos (including Benzos used to treat SSRI withdrawal problems), how on earth can a doctor ethically prescribe these drugs for more than 3-4 weeks, if at all? And is there a direct connection between Benzo use and the nature of SSRI withdrawal that needs further exploration? And where is the real “Informed Consent” as it pertains to Benzos?

    And finally, when Dr. Shipko states in his opening paragraph:

    “If I thought that it was possible, I would have opened a string of clinics all over the country to help get people off of antidepressants. Unfortunately, the problems that sometimes occur when people try to stop an SSRI antidepressant are much more severe and long-lasting than the medical profession acknowledges, and there is no antidote to these problems.”

    Researcher was insightful in analyzing the negativity and hopeless in this opening statement, especially when Benzos are proposed as the only hope. Other things came to my mind that do not bode well for people seeking help for these problems.

    I have often thought, and even foolishly suggested to some psychiatrists, that there is a huge “market” out there for treating people trying to come off of Psych drugs. Perhaps I thought, even though I’m a critic of capitalism, that this financial incentive might somehow convince psychiatrists to take a different road away from Biological Psychiatry. It was foolish and it’s not going to happen! At this time only a few knowledgeable and courageous psychiatrists will be willing to do this work and Dr. Shipco’s posting hints at why.

    Most Biological Psychiatrists are obsessed with liability issues and they currently believe that drugging and sedating people limits their risk of suicide and self-harm. We at MIA know this is wrong, but this is how THEY think. Most psychiatrists when faced with what they might describe as unrelenting SSRI withdrawal problems, are going to believe there is too much liability to risk taking on these patients. They will say that these patients are “too high maintenance” and “too risky.”

    And my fear is that people seeking help for these long term withdrawal problems will be viewed like “chronic pain patients” or perhaps people labeled “Borderline Personality Disorder”; people viewed as difficult to work with and to be avoided in one’s practice. We need to fight this form of discrimination.

    Monica, Vanessa, Altostrata and others do important and heroic work in this area. We need to advocate and fight for more attention and research on this important issue. We need to be more scientific while listening carefully to survivors experience. We need to avoid being alarmist or jumping to conclusions without science to back it up. At times, speculation is needed to begin to expand our theories, but let’s make sure we call it that. Perhaps this overall discussion will become a part of that process.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Researcher and others

    Researcher, your critique of Dr. Shipko’s analysis has taken some of my own concerns to a much deeper level and I appreciate your contribution to this discussion.

    At the same time I would say that your cynical speculation about the doctor’s personal profit motives regarding the promotion of his book and also helping Big Pharma sell more SSRI drugs is not part of civil discourse. It actually misdirects and undermines the importance of this discussion and takes away from the power of the position you are fighting for.

    This discussion vitally needs Dr. Shipko (and others) to reengage and I hope the tenor of some of the responses has not discouraged him (or others) from responding. At the same time I will say he should have been prepared for a contentious discussion because of the controversial and emotionally charged nature of his position.

    Let’s get back into it. I cannot believe that more MIA readers are not bothered (enough to write about it) by the mixed message in Dr. Shipko’s posting regarding his prescribing of both SSRIs and Benzos.

    He has presented one of the most devastating analyses of the long term negative effects of SSRI use on the internet. He promotes a view (based more on speculation, than actual science) that SSRIs, especially after 5 or more years of use, may cause a more permanent condition of Tardive Dyskinesia or Akathisia. “…accompanied by an agitated anxious/depressed state.” He describes them as new symptoms not a relapse of the old.

    Yet, after prophesizing and detailing such a dismal outcome of prolonged SSRI use combined with a statement that there is “…no antidote to these problems” he then states the following:

    “The book (Dr.Shipco’s book on informed consent related to SSRI’s use) is short and readable and does mention the drugs can be very helpful to people. …and when a patient is still interested in an SSRI even after reading the book, I take this as a serious indication of how much they are suffering and may find that the risk/benefit ratio tilts in favor of trying an SSRI.”

    There is a major contradiction of ethics in these statements. If a doctor has evidence that a drug causes far more harm than good, and in this case, short term benefits that precede excessive long term damage, how then can they justify prescribing the drugs to any person, no matter how much they request or even beg for a prescription? “Inform Consent” has no real meaning in this scenario.

    These drugs were created and promoted world wide under false pretenses and corrupt science. The scientific evidence is strong that they don’t do what they are advertised and promoted to do, and that there are terrible side (or main) effects. This is the commonly accepted view of most critics of Biological Psychiatry. And I assume Dr.Shipco would call himself such a critic. So therefore, just because these drugs exist in the market place this does not mean a doctor is somehow obligated to prescribe them. On the contrary, in my view, they should be ethically obligated NOT to write new prescriptions for them.

    Antibiotics exist in the market place. People ask for or beg doctors to prescribe them all the time. Responsible doctors refuse to prescribe them when they are not appropriate due to the potential long term dangers.

    This raises the question: can these drugs (SSRIs) “…be really helpful to people.” as Dr. Shipko states, and is this his justification for why he continues to prescribe them despite the dangers (thus creating this major ethical contradiction). My answer would be, maybe. Maybe SSRIs CAN be symptom reducing in the short term.

    (Warning) Now,I am forced to delve into some speculation to explain why I said maybe. I believe that SSRIs may actually be more effective in dealing with anxiety symptoms than with depression symptoms. Even though I believe the two sets of symptoms are dialectically related, they do have distinct and separate characteristics. One connected aspect of both depression and anxiety is the failure (or lack of confidence) in being able to predict the future within one’s environment.

    Many people on SSRIs have described to me that these drugs seem to take the edge off of their anger and anxiety in dealing with major stressors in their life. For some people this may (in the short run) make their life more predictable and tolerable, and appear to lessen their depression or sense of despair and hopelessness functioning in a difficult environment.

    The truth in all this could be related to the frequently reported SSRI effect of “emotional numbing.” Anxiety and/or anger could be temporarily suppressed or numbed out for some people. Of course “emotional numbing” comes with a price and has major downsides because many of these same people who like the “edge” being taken off in their life also bitterly complain about not feeling emotions matching the actual conditions they are facing in life, such as, not crying or grieving appropriately when some one dies or something very sad happens. Or feeling no desire to connect with people in an emotional or physically intimate way. This emotional state of being is very uncomfortable and alienating to people, and rightfully so because it runs counter to the essence of human beings as social and compassionate creatures. This is one major reason why people decide they want to stop these drugs.

    So what these drugs (SSRIs) giveth they also taketh away. Many people do not discover this terrible tradeoff of symptoms until after they have become dependent on them. And then they will have to face possible major withdrawal problems when they try to get off the drugs, some that could last for years.

    Furthermore, what these drugs giveth (to the small number of people who report benefits) is usually short lived. Uncomfortable symptoms (both old and new) seem to break through even while on the drugs, and certainly continue in the post period of withdrawal. Life is difficult (including the reality surrounding the use of SSRIs) as Monica so eloquently wrote about in her blog. So now the same people (understandably so) desperately ask their doctors for more help. Now comes a new round of pill prescriptions including the infamous, Benzos.

    Now before I start writing about the closely related Benzo ethical contradiction in Part 2 of this posting, I have to ask once again: If a doctor is aware of the risk/benefit ratio discussed above, especially if they claim there is little or no hope for some of these patients to fully recover from post SSRI use, how on earth can they ethically justify prescribing SSRIs to anyone. Am I the only person aroused by this ethical contradiction of supposed “Informed Consent?”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Altostrata

    Thank you for your thoughtful response.

    I don’t dismiss the possibility that there could be some type of more permanent systemic brain disruption caused by SSRIs. My point is there is no scientific proof of this at this time, and it is wrong to promote or imply that there is such proof.

    Anecdotal experience here at MIA and on other websites such as “Surviving Antidepressants” is valuable information and perhaps helpful to this discussion, but it does not represent definitive proof of Tardive Dyskinesia or Dysphoria.

    I still believe some of my questions regarding other factors that could be contributing elements to the start of new or old symptoms are still pertinent to this discussion.

    “Do they have serious stress in their life? Did they experience new trauma? Do they have unresolved trauma in their past? Are they abusing or misusing mind altering substances such as pot, alcohol etc.? What is their diet? Do they exercise or meditate and, if not, why not?”

    It has been repeated often by many survivors that these drugs cause “emotional numbing” as one side (or main) effect of even short term use. One might speculate that as a person in withdrawal or post withdrawal suddenly starts feeling intense emotions or feelings again (due to some of the factors mentioned above in my questions) they might be extremely sensitive due to the prior period of numbing. This may be a condition of heightened “sensitivity” not necessarily permanent brain damage.

    A person’s frustration or pain tolerance threshold could be seriously lowered after stopping SSRIs in a similar way as long term opiate addicts who suddenly stop using. Every one knows that former opiate addicts in early recovery have no tolerance for even low levels of physical or emotional pain; this is one factor in high relapse rates. This threshold level seems to return to a more normal state after some time goes by.

    And when people experience new (or old) symptoms of anxiety and /or depression do they self medicate with other mind altering substances, even if they avoid returning to psychiatric drugs? Alcohol and pot can cause paranoia, anxiety, and depression in certain people and how do these substance react with people who have a heightened state of sensitivity due to a prior state of emotional numbing from SSRIs?

    And what about the use of Benzos with people with post SSRI withdrawal symptoms? Dr. Shipko admitted that people want them and he prescribes them. Do these drugs provide temporary relief in the short run, but actually worsen the symptoms in long term outcomes by disabling normal coping skills and by actually increasing someone’s heightened state of sensitivity?

    I have never experienced a post withdrawal syndrome and do not want to second guess anyone’s decision to relieve terrible symptoms with some type of drug; that is a choice every individual needs to make for themselves. But we do need to thoroughly examine ALL factors in post withdrawal symptomology before we rush to judgment on these important questions.

    My knowledge about Benzos (including from MIA writers) combined with what I have observed in the high rates of their use in community mental health, is that they are emotionally crippling drugs; dependency occurs quickly and it undermines people’s internal coping mechanisms. Anxiety problems tend to increase with their use and when more stress hits a person they are more prone to be in a repeated state of crisis mode.

    I would still ask Dr. Shipko to please respond to some of my questions raised in my above post.

    “… there is the mixed messages about prescribing Benzos (for more than 3 weeks) and SSRIs. If a doctor knows the true dangers of Benzos and SSRIs how can they justify giving out prescriptions? These drugs were developed and promoted and approved under false pretenses(read Peter Breggin on the approval of Xanax and Prozac). If it can be proven that they cause far more harm than good how can any doctor justify prescribing them? Donna made a salient point to Dr. Steingard in a previous dialogue when she said that people often ask or demand antibiotics but responsible doctors refuse to prescribe them.

    “…given your current knowledge on these drugs could you please explain when it would be appropriate to prescribe a Benzo or an SSRI, and if so, for how long?”

    Altostrata, I believe these are fair questions. If you could prescribe, I can’t imagine you ever prescribing an SSRI except to help someone in the withdrawal process. And Benzos are wonderful drugs in a hospital setting, but outside of a hospital they are perhaps the most dangerous and misused drugs in the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Dr. Shipko and others:

    I really really wanted to like this blog posting. The title was a very provocative criticism of antidepressants and it was even written by an M.D. After all, I have been a longtime critic of Biological Psychiatry and I am always looking for more ammunition to use in the fight against the medical model and the damaging use of psychiatric drugs.

    However, this topic kept me up late last night stewing about its content, even before I had a chance to read any critical responses. I have decided I am more with Monica, Duane, and Altostrata on this issue, and believe part of this blog posting presents a mixed message and promotes speculation substituting for science.

    Biological Psychiatry first promoted antidepressants based on speculative pseudoscience about “chemical imbalances” and low levels of serotonin in the brain. They had no hard evidence; only serendipitous events and anecdotal experience. How are the following statements fundamentally any different in their lack of scientific substance:

    “…people who stop SSRIs often develop a NEW (my emphasis) onset of severe depression or anxiety months after stopping the drugs.”

    “…the problems that sometimes occur when people try to stop an SSRI antidepressant are much more severe than the medical profession acknowledges, and there is NO (my emphasis) ‘antidote’ to these problems.”

    Where is there any scientific analysis of who these people are and what conditions in their life that might have led to these new symptoms or a relapse of the old ones? Do they have serious stress in their life? Did they experience new trauma? Do they have unresolved trauma in their past? Are they abusing or misusing mind altering substances such as pot, alcohol etc.? What is their diet? Do they exercise or meditate and, if not, why not?

    How can we evaluate any of these cases or Dr. Shipko’s main arguments without some of this information? Were these questions asked and if so can we trust that the individuals will respond honestly when asked? Without this knowledge how can we say that some type of “protracted withdrawal” or Tardive Dyskinesia from SSRIs is involved?

    I don’t believe I am afraid of the truth about the dangers of antidepressants; I tell people they are overhyped and have serious side effects and many long term negative consequences. But this blog has a major theme prophesizing doom without significant science to back it up.

    Readers of this blog who have been fortunate enough to get off SSRIs or soon want to get off could easily run in a negative direction with this information if they are experiencing some new form of extreme stress in their life. Will some people now think they are permanently damaged due to a return of certain symptoms in response their new (or old) stressors? Or will they give up any dream of being medication free?

    It is irresponsible to seriously write about ALL these SSRI dangers without at the same time mentioning the scientific concept of “NEUROPLASTICITY.”

    I have been doing addictions work for over 20 years in community mental health. I have seen people who had serious addictions for decades. Yes, I have seen relapse, but I have also met people who had decades of permanent abstinence after years of terrible substance abuse, and quite often these addiction problems are related to extremely traumatic childhoods of unimaginable forms of abuse.

    I believe addiction issues involve well traveled neural pathways in the brain that involve impulsivity, compulsivity, and negative thought patterns, and they involve more primitive parts of the brain that make humans attracted to things that produce various forms of pleasure. When permanent abstinence occurs over time, I believe new brain pathways of recovery are formed that overwhelm and dominate the former more dysfunction patterns of thought and behavior. A similar dynamic of transformation of brain pathways may take place when people overcome a serious period of depression.

    Yes, there is some speculation in my above points, but there is more evidence to make these speculations then the so-called theory of some form of permanent damage to the brain’s sertonergic system of homeostasis leading to unrelenting periods of depression and anxiety arising out of the blue.

    Transformation and liberation from these problems involving some form of brain neuroplasticity is possible, and many of the writers at MIA are a testimony to this possibility. Perhaps we need to scientifically evaluate what actually constitutes these qualities of human resilience so as to give more people hope for permanent change.

    And then there is the mixed messages about prescribing Benzos (more than 3 weeks) and SSRIs. If a doctor knows the true dangers of Benzos and SSRIs how can they justify giving out prescriptions? These drugs were developed and promoted and approved under false pretenses(read Peter Breggin on the approval of Xanax and Prozac). If it can be proven that they cause far more harm than good how can any doctor justify prescribing them? Donna made a salient point to Dr. Steingard in a previous dialogue when she said that people often ask or demand antibiotics but responsible doctors refuse to prescribe them.

    Dr. Shipko, given your current knowledge on these drugs could you please explain when it would be appropriate to prescribe a Benzo or an SSRI, and if so, for how long?

    By raising these criticism, Dr. Shipko I am not questioning your intentions here, but I am questioning some of your scientific method and one-sidedness in presenting a very controversial subject.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Donna

    I’m not sure which position your backing off from in your earlier posts. I thought your promotion and support for the above article “Science as Social Control…” was right on, and I said so in a previous comment.

    As for the issue of “government;” the current government and the system it represents is all of the things you criticize and more. But let’s call it what it is. This government is in essence merely a committee representing the economic and political interests of the largest corporate capitalists. They promote policies and laws to allow for those that put them in power to maximize their profits by any means necessary; Big Pharma is but one entity in this corrupt mess.

    People may vote, but let’s be clear who puts these people in power. I have a master’s degree and have been reading about politics since college and I still don’t understand the caucus system that nominates candidates for elections. Democracy is an illusion; these candidates are selected in board rooms and must pass the acid tests of the major corporate leaders in this country or they will never be allowed near the Democratic or Republican party.

    THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT REALLY BIG VS. SMALL GOVERNMENT. Isn’t it be more a question of – who is the government made up of, who does the government represent, and in whose interests do they make policy. When we answer those questions for today’s world we can see that the vast majority of people are going to get screwed.

    A few other questions to evaluate government by: is it moving society in the direction of developing the material and social conditions for more equality and opportunities for the creation of a “level playing field” or is it promoting division and widening the gaps between the powerful and the powerless.

    In an ideal sense, shouldn’t government be creating conditions in the world for EVERYONE to be able to govern. If it is not doing this then I believe it will eventually become oppressive.

    When I mentioned earlier about a point in history (that I believe is possible) where everyone is both a “thinker and a doer” (which clearly implies a point in history when there is relative economic and educational equality (after all 98% is determined by the environment) then, in theory, everyone would be capable of governing. And perhaps large numbers of people would engage in voluntary cooperation and would be involved in the “administration of things” or at least able to rotate in and out of those positions.

    The genetic determinists, sociobiologists, Biological Psychiatrists and others of their ilk do everything in their power to make us believe that this is not possible. And the latter group is currently involved in drugging a significant section of today’s rebellious youth who otherwise (and in previous generations) would become the new generation of political activists and creative agents of change challenging the status quo. Hermes is right when he says this may be one of, or perhaps the last major human rights struggle.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hermes

    Thanks for the compliments. I was hoping more people would chime in on this discussion; it is very important when you consider both short term tactics and the long term goals of our movement.

    Thanks for clarifying the origin of the Bob Marley reference.

    I am not sure how to take the comment about how old I look. I am almost 66 years old and very much a product of the 1960’s movement and beyond. We may be on the verge of another such movement that will need to take things much much further.

    I still work in community mental health (as a counselor/therapist) which has become more and more difficult as the medical model (Biological Psychiatry) totally dominates out field of work. I have been speaking out for years about this and plan to intensify my criticism. I am now coming to a conclusion that more harm than good may be occurring due to the proliferation of Psychiatric drugs. This poses a major moral dilemma about the appropriate response to this. Things may soon get very interesting.

    (this is in response to the comments just above)

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Anonymous

    It is much easier for people living in relative comfort (as compared to the 50% of humanity that is not sure where their next meal is coming from) to promote views of less government.

    You say, “The more voluntary the better…I’m for voluntary cooperation to improve things, government isn’t voluntary.”

    In principle, and as a goal for the future of humanity, I completely agree with this statement. But the key question is, how does human society get to a point in its history where this level of cooperation is possible?

    For those people who currently have economic wealth, with all their basic needs met, it is so easy to push for less government. And for those at the very top of the economic pyramid they need less government to place any restrictions on their ability to maximize profits by any means necessary. Of course these same people want more government when it comes to restricting the ability of people to challenge the status quo.

    Until human beings can create a society that maximizes the possibility of a level playing field where everyone can be both a “thinker and doer”, then and only then, will we be able to have true “voluntary cooperation.”

    Biological Psychiatry and other forms of oppression will not be defeated by the internet. It can play a role, but let’s remember that governments can control the internet and it already does so in many countries.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Anonymous

    You said above “I’m no sociobiology fan, no genetic determinist, no believer that biology explains society, but I’m also no socialist… I’m not into banning, I’m not into government, and I’m not into using the state to create anybody’s dream of anything. I want the state to stop doing a lot of things, anyone who wants me to come along in their desire to have the state start doing something, won’t find me coming along, that’s just the way it’s going to be with me.”

    How far do you want to take this argument? You do not have to be a “socialist” to have more ethical and moral consistency in the power of some of your strong positions.

    You have articulated the most powerful condemnation of forced drugging on the internet. I believe you have almost convinced Sandra Steingard; you have just a little more work to do with her.

    Question: Is there really a huge moral or political difference between someone who is physically forced to have psychiatric drugs placed in their body or a person who is subjected to 16 hours a day of intense psychological pressure from so-called medical experts, media propaganda and other forms of cultural coercion, family members, and perhaps peer influences insisting that these drugs are necessary all ending in some type of medication compliance?

    You know those so-called Mafia type “offers you cannot refuse.”

    If the same result occurs whereby these drugs end up in that person’s body assaulting their brain’s capacity to function in the world, and rendering them more pliable to be controlled, is this not also a form of slavery? Perhaps more similar to that referenced by Bob Marley as “mental chains of slavery.”

    When the American Civil War ended slavery and southern Blacks found themselves mired in a sharecropping system, and the southern aristocracy ultimately received concessions having the northern army removed allowing the KKK (an organized terrorist arm of the plantation owners) to run amok keeping Blacks in their place and essentially denying basic freedoms, such as voting and freedom of movement etc., was this not just a new form of slavery?

    Yes, you could say the Blacks were no longer owned and in theory could move to another state, but it does not change the essence of an entirely new form of human oppression.

    Today, some people say that an individual business should have the right to serve who they want; if they don’t want to serve Black people then that is their choice. Does government have the right to tell them who they can serve? Anonymous, how far do you want to take your argument about government intervention?

    What about Xanax, Peter Breggin exposed the fact that the pharmaceutical giant, Upjohn, promoted Xanax as non addictive, and deliberately withheld the last 4 weeks of studies from the FDA (during the approval process) that showed that people’s anxiety symptoms became worse after 4 weeks of continuous use. Should they not be punished financially and otherwise for the human carnage their lies and deception created? Or do we just want to say that people all have “equal choices” to decide to take the drugs or not; that moral responsibility is shared. Do you really believe this?

    Anonymous, through accident of birth and a set of your own unique experiences that exposed you to advanced forms of education (and of course, also the school of hard knocks) which allowed you to acquire a highly developed and creative ability to use human logic and language, I am quite sure you could resist the 16 hours of indoctrination that I mentioned above. I am sure you would refuse the psychiatric drugs and be better off for it.

    Unfortunately for most people in society there is not a level playing field. We live in a class based society where many people are denied the tools and/or the conditions for emotional stability to make truly informed decisions.

    If you believe that human beings are capable of creating safer and more humane ways of meeting the needs of those people experiencing extreme states of psychological stress or other altered states (such as Open Dialogue or Soteria like programs), then you must believe that human beings have the capacity to use some type of logic and morality to create more advance forms of human organization. Why can’t this ultimately include more democratic and humane forms of governing. It’s not just that we can do this, but that we MUST do this or our species will not survive.

    Are human beings genetically programed to oppress other human being; you know the famous quote “power corrupts absolutely?” Are the people who do wonderful work creating all the new forms of support for people labeled “mentally ill”, including many who write for MIA, are they all just some form of human genetic mutation; some weird minority running counter to the true selfish nature of the human genome?

    If we don’t ultimately get involved somehow and someway in figuring out how human beings can better organize society, including some forms of government, then other people will gladly do it for us. And we all know how that is working out for us.

    How far do you want to take this? Anonymous, you can do better; we all can do better; we have to.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Anonymous

    I have supported your brilliance on other issues.

    I am more with Donna on these questions.

    I thought the above article was overall very good and important for us to promote in our movement and in all human rights struggles.

    The tobacco industry represents only one entity benefiting and promoting genetic determinism. Back in the 60’s the book, THE NAKED APE by Conrad Lorenz, was one of many promoted as an attack against the powerful movement against the Vietnam war, the Black Liberation struggle, Women’s Liberation Movement, and anti-capitalist sentiments.

    The Socio-biologists (the forerunners of Biological Psychiatry) of the time promoted the view that war, imperialism, and all forms of social inequality were just a product of the true genetic nature of the human species. They would cite all the examples of violence and so-called inequality in the animal world and project that onto all forms of human social organization.

    So any 60’s activism against injustice, in all its forms, represented just a bunch of hopeless dreamers going against the natural order of things dictated by the consequence of human genetics. Not too different from today’s more modern version.

    Any exposure of these “genetic theories of original sin” and the political and economic agenda behind them is a good thing and should be supported.

    You said “I think the 1998 master settlement against tobacco firms is one of the singularly most disgusting flights from personal responsibility in modern human history. I have no respect for anybody who sues a tobacco company, or a fast food company, or a casino, or a soda company.”

    I have no problem with this settlement. Any righteous exposure and attacks against the tobacco industry are a good thing. My problem with the settlement is the fact that the state governments fraudulently took the money that was suppose to be used only for smoking cessation programs and used it to deal with their own system’s financial crisis.

    Why should any entity, individual, or corporation be allowed to make a substance known to kill people, then market it as something worth using, while hiding its lethal nature.

    If their was a legitimate government agency such as the FDA (we know it is now thoroughly corrupt and illegitimate) that determined that a medical procedure, drug, or medical device was causing far more harm than good,then it would be in the best interests of society to ban its use.

    “Freedom of choice” does not really exist when an entire socio/political/economic system controls the major institutions disseminating information and knowledge, and uses that power to promote an agenda of self interest diametrically opposed to the best interests of the majority of society.

    Should we place the same amount of responsibility and blame on an economically disadvantaged mother who makes the Sophe’s choice like decision that allows her child to take psychiatric drugs in exchange for disability benefits as we would the institutions representing Biological Psychiatry that uses power, corruption, and lies to convince people that the drugs are absolutely necessary?

    Absolutely not!! There is not an equal exchange of information, power, and control in the so-called “market place of ideas” and choice in today’s world. Huge sections of the population are born into conditions that place them at a serious disadvantage to make informed decisions. What about the “extreme states of psychological distress” that we talk about so often at MIA.? These have a connection to poverty and a lack of power and control in our society.

    And finally on the question of whether or not certain drugs are responsible for violence or other behaviors. Of course, by themselves they do not dictate a specific behavior but they can be a factor in pushing people over a certain threshold that otherwise may not have been crossed without them. For example, there are certain medical prescribed drugs linked to compulsive gambling behavior. These behaviors would not exist if someone did not live near or have access to gambling entities or perhaps have been exposed to a prior gambling experience.

    Psych drugs can play a role or be some type of catalyst in pushing people beyond certain thresholds of tolerance to stress, and combined with other past exposures to violent behavior and a multitude of other social influences become a significant factor to be evaluated in these cases of suicide and outbursts of violence.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Eleanor

    An inspiring and insightful presentation of your experience.

    Paraphrasing a very poignant part of your presentation. “It’s not what’s wrong with you but what happened to you.”

    As a counselor working in community mental health for 20 years and a critic of Biological Psychiatry, it’s not about labels or symptoms, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE NARRATIVE.

    If I cannot understand what someone is struggling with in their life and how it came to be, then I know I have not listened closely enough or asked the right questions. It is only when I have some understanding of the narrative that I can begin to join with someone in helping them solve problems.

    I look forward to reading more of your posts.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Madmom and Anonymous

    Your above comments on forced treatment and forced drugging are two of the most powerfully written pieces of prose ever posted at MIA; they each deserve an independent blog presentation at this website. I hope the moderators make a special note regarding these posts.

    As an activist who writes here, I must say that your contributions to our movement only deepens my understanding of why Biological Psychiatry belongs in the museum of history next to other forms of human slavery, and only strengthens my resolve to devote even more energy to make that happen as soon as possible.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    Thank you again for raising this topic. I also find Hermes postings here in the discussion to be quite educational. Even though they are quite technical I read every word and am gradually learning more about neurochemistry.

    Slightly off topic I’d like to ask you to address a couple of other questions related to psychiatric drug prescribing.

    As you may know from my other postings I also work in community mental health in a neighboring state. I observe the fact that many patients are currently prescribed 3 to 7 (sometimes more) different psychiatric drugs at one time. Also huge amounts of Benzos are prescribed for long periods of time. I know overall you advocate the judicious use of all psychiatric drugs.

    What are your thoughts (briefly) on the issue of “polypharmacy” in psychiatry and the use of Benzos?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    Thanks for pointing out this article on Haldol.

    I believe it is dishonest of the author, Nasrallah, to make excuses that somehow psychiatry did not have access to research about the brain damaging effects of neuroleptic drugs. Dr. Peter Breggin has been writing about this since the late 1980’s (Psychiatric Drugs: Hazards to the Brain). And if it is true that this information was only in the hands of certain neurologists, what does this say about their ethics by not immediately alerting all psychiatrists prescribing enormous amounts of these drugs to large numbers of psychiatric patients over the past 40-50 years. The medical ethics of this are incomprehensible.

    It sounds like this article may be in response to the journal article that was posted here about a year ago and signed by the current president of the APA (I am sorry I don’t have the link at this time) which stated that the newer SGA’s prescribed to people age 40 and over were ineffective with any “psychopathology” and caused multiple side effects including many significant medically dangerous effects. Perhaps Biological Psychiatry was concerned that doctors might return to using more first generation neuroleptics which are much cheaper.

    And finally, shouldn’t we all be questioning the use of the word “neuroprotective.” If some drugs were truly “neuroprotective” shouldn’t we all be taking them. The research noted in the article Laura referenced by Joanna Moncrief shows no evidence that a prolonged psychotic state (or that which gets labeled as schizophrenia) causes some type of brain deterioration.

    I subscribe to the view that the psychological states of depression, anxiety, psychosis etc. are coping mechanisms that may be quite effective in the short run but counterproductive and often self defeating over a sustained period. The problem may be more that these psychological states can become habitual, with perhaps well traveled pathways developing in the brain that could also explain the tendency for relapse.

    But all habits can be broken and newer pathways can develop over time (through neuroplasticity) which can become stronger and overwhelm the older pathways that represent dysfunctional habits, including psychosis. So yes, it may be beneficial for someone to disengage from a psychotic state sooner rather than later so that it won’t become a well established psychological pattern of viewing the world.

    This way of viewing the symptoms of psychosis counters the theories of neurological damage or “brain disease” promoted by Biological Psychiatry. I believe we must expose AND oppose the unscientific use of the term “neuroprotective.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Madmom

    I agree with you. I have worked over 20 years in community mental health with a focus on addictions.

    My research and anecdotal experience tells me that some people are very sensitive to pot, and when the use of this drug is combined with other life stressors it can be a “trigger” or a “catalyst” for psychotic like symptoms or paranoia.

    If fact most people have an evolving relationship with this drug. Many who eventually quit using pot will often refer to it creating a “paranoid edge” to their thought process that makes them uncomfortable and more anxious. I have interviewed hundreds of people who have told me this.

    I would speculate that with today’s youth most young people who have experienced a first time “psychotic break” not only have some trauma in their life experience but also considerable pot use as well.

    Just one more reason to NOT refer to these problems as a brain disease.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Matthew, Tina and Joanna

    Matthew, on the issue of requiring featured bloggers to make an honest effort to participate in discussions, you made a statement above that such a requirement could be a form of “violence” if someone was not prepared or ready in some circumstances to respond to commenters.

    I felt the use of the word “violence” was a bit extreme in this context. This has been more of an issue for professionals and academics on this website who have, at times, avoided participation or very selectively limited their responses.. I believe most survivors writing here (if not all) have more than welcomed interaction with the readers, even when it may have become a bit contentious.

    Tina raised a connected issue of “upper class aggression” and Joanna has raised issues related to “triggers.” I would say that one of the more subtle forms of “aggression” or perhaps “passive/aggressive” ways to disrespect someone or “trigger” them is to ignore or invalidate their feelings by not even acknowledging their existence.

    Sandra Steingard has been exemplary at MIA in handling very difficult discussions. She responds to almost all commenters. When there is strong emotion being expressed first she both acknowledges and validates their emotion before attempting to respond to the feelings and the particular questions raised. She also shows some compassion and understanding where some of these feelings might be coming from before she heads into the scientific questions being addressed. Even with the science she is upfront about what she knows something about, and not afraid to express her ignorance and confusion on certain subjects. This is why she has garnered so much respect, even though she is a psychiatrist working on the front lines in community mental health.

    Compare this to a few academics/professionals who do not participate hardly at all, or are very selective when they do respond. That is, sometimes rejoining a very emotional discussion about some of their ideas or comments with an introduction like “Hi everyone” and then never validating the existence of any emotion or strong feelings by choosing to only address the scientific issues involved in the discussion.

    Many survivors at MIA have provided numerous experiences where they have received very oppressive treatment (with some related similarities to the above topic) by psychiatrists or nurses, especially during forced hospitalizations and forced drugging. Many were deliberately provoked by their captors, and when they responded with strong emotion they were ridiculed or punished for it. Or in other situations their emotions and feelings were completely ignored and they were treated robotically by those in power.

    In smaller ways this could be recreated at MIA when bloggers ignore strong feelings, especially when some of their own writings or comments seem to provoke it, even unconsciously.

    In some way this brings to mind the famous character, nurse Ratched from “One Flew Over the Cockoo’s Nest.” She never showed emotion, or yelled at people or even raised her voice, but she sure knew how to provoke people and then when they responded with anger or emotion she belittled or punished them.

    Now I am NOT making any direct comparisons to nurse Ratched to those blogging at MIA but only using this example to describe a certain process in communication that has undertones of more subtle forms of aggression.

    As some have postulated, there are many forms of intelligence. To improve communication at MIA it might be helpful for some, in particular, (and perhaps all of us) to work on raising the IQ of emotional intelligence when it comes to blog participation.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Abbot

    Thanks for your compliments about my writing.

    In your comments above about Chrys and Jonah being “censored” you do not state if you believe their ESSENTIAL message was in any way being stifled or if you thought somehow the standards for moderation were wrong in and of themselves.

    I used the term “lazy ass” methods of writing earlier only to point out that some times it’s easier to dismiss or criticize someone’s comments by using “generalizations”, “straw man” arguments, name calling, sarcasm etc. rather than doing the hard work of digging deeper into the analysis and wielding real science as a tool (and sometimes as a weapon) for persuasion on the road to liberation.

    Is it asking too much of people (while participating at MIA) to make a few modifications in how we present our thoughts and ideas? At this time I do not think so, and besides it might just improve our forms of communication through the written word.

    Believe me I do not plan on being soft on Biological Psychiatry, nor do I think anyone else should be either. And actually, nor do I think that is the intentions of the leaders of MIA. It is more a question of form over content.

    Do we need other forms of organizations to wage this battle? As I have said before, we have enough theory, science, and numbers of people to BEGIN significant political activism that could start making a difference in the battle against Biological Psychiatry. What we lack is the collective will to develop the right program and organization to make it happen at this time.

    Another activist website could turn into an interesting exchange of ideas but I am afraid that it might just channel valuable energy into the realm of ideas and not lead to direct political action. It requires enormous allocation of people’s time and resources to run a good website. If this developed out of radical organization I might think differently about it.

    And Abbot I hope to read more of your views at MIA in the future.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Abbot

    I consider myself quite radical when it come to fighting Biological Psychiatry and changing the current economic and political system we live under.

    I also recently had one of my comments “moderated” for the first time. Yes, I was initially angry and shocked by this. However, Matthew took the time to email me with the justification for its removal. I accepted his criticism and believe it will improve my future contributions.

    I also stated earlier in the comments that I believe we can and should contribute “hard hitting” and penetrating critiques of both the theory and practice of Biological Psychiatry. This can be done in a “civil” way (Malcolm X was quite “civil” with his speaking and writing style but no one would ever call him “namby pamby” or compromising) without resorting to some of the poor (and sometimes “lazy ass”) writing methods that are being “moderated.”

    I am keeping an open mind about this process and will carefully review comments that are moderated (this can be done by clicking on the word “moderated” and reviewing the reasons for the removal of a posting.) I will be the first one to complain if I think any strong, powerful, insightful, emotional etc. postings are removed for the wrong reasons.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Cannotsay

    I agree with your analysis regarding the strength and power of the institutions maintaining the status quo. Those people who believe that Biological Psychiatry is a house of cards, almost ready to fall, are misjudging the strength of the enemy, and how valuable their paradigm of theory and practice is to preserving the status quo.

    It is interesting that you are saying that Bob Whitaker is overly “optimistic” about influencing NAMI and other mainstream organizations. It was just a few weeks ago that someone was saying that he was overly negative and “pessimistic” about his involvement in the event at the Vatican.

    If NAMI began to kick out people such as Kathy for rocking the boat or for writing at MIA (or if they decided to leave for having major disagreements) this would definitely shake things up by further exposing their defense of Biological Psychiatry and create new conditions to bring forward new activists.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Matthew

    I support the essence of your attempt to establish fair and appropriate standards for dialogue at MIA.

    On some of these issues there are fine lines between appropriate and inappropriate that can only be fully established over time and in the course of the actual struggle to change the world.

    You have made a good start and I appreciate your hard work and your sincere efforts to struggle with us over the best ways to wage this battle.

    I have always advocated an approach that seeks to unite “all who can be united” (both inside and outside the current mental health system) around an ideology and program to defeat Biological Psychiatry (I am anti-Biological Psychiatry, not anti-psychiatry) as part of a broader struggle for social justice and human rights for all.

    Overall I believe my postings have more than met that standard. Recently one of my comments was moderated in a posting by Jill Littrel. Matthew conducted some principled email communication with me over some of the new standards presented above. After careful reconsideration I have accepted the fact that there were some fundamental problems with how I presented some of my passionate ideas. Matthew’s criticisms were in depth, well thought out, and constructive regarding the future content of my postings.

    I would make the following observations about some of the discussion regarding the fine lines between appropriate and inappropriate postings:

    1) Oppressive ideology and practice as well as bad science in the mental health field should still be hit hard at MIA. But it should be done through the hard work of digging deep into the critical questions and wielding real science as a powerful weapon of persuasion. When this is combined with the real life stories of transformation and liberation from the current mental health system it represents an unbreakable force for positive change.

    2)Name calling, broad generalizations mischaracterizations, “straw man” arguments, shaming statements are often “lazy ass” methods of avoiding the hard work of digging deep into the questions to expose wrong ideas and practice. There is a difference between deliberately trying to shame someone using the above methods, and people ultimately feeling shame because we have made such powerful arguments convincing them that their real life practice has caused great harm to people. There is nothing wrong with the latter result.

    3) There is a difference between the top leadership of the various institutions of Biological Psychiatry and its rank and file. We should be targeting the leadership and their ideology and practice while using persuasion to split off and win over some of the rank and file.

    4) We do not have to worry about dishonest or stubborn representatives of Biological Psychiatry dominating or distorting the essential content of MIA. Using the hard hitting yet appropriate methods of struggle mentioned above, they will not be able to handle or tolerate the truth when it is presented in an unrelenting and persuasive manner.

    5) I am asking MIA to consider the following change in blogging policy: I believe all bloggers who make featured postings at MIA should, as a condition of participation, be required to make an honest effort to respond (in a reasonable time period) to the major themes made by those people in the discussion section. This does not mean responding to every comment but to the essential questions raised. I believe this would raise the level of discourse and hold people to an appropriate standard of accountability and responsibility to engage with the readers. This would also avoid any bloggers just using MIA as a form of self promotion or making provocative presentations without some accountability to defend their views. It also provides readers the possibility of further elaboration and deepening of the author’s analysis, or possibly show some changes or evolution in the author’s thinking through the process of MIA’s discussion section.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jill

    Where are you?

    This is the second time in two blog postings that you have disappeared when things have become a little heated. When people question your analysis, you either do not respond to their specific comments and questions, or you just disappear for a while.

    The same thing happened in your last blog posting titled “Talk Therapy Can Cause Harm Too.” I believe Duane made serious mention of this problem at the end of your last blog, as did I.

    I am detecting a pattern of participation at MIA that has problems involving both your method of struggle and the content of your analysis.

    This pattern I am pointing out refers to your tendency to bail out of a sticky discussion and to your tendency to down play the role of trauma and environmental stress in the development of the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness.”

    The bailing out of discussions is just plain disrespectful and avoidant. I will once again ask you “Are you not promoting a version of the “chemical Imbalance” theory above, and can you provide evidence backing it up?” And “do you believe in the “brain disease” labels such as “schizophrenia” promoted by Biological Psychiatry?”

    When environmental stressors are downplayed in the mental health field this plays right into the hands of Biological Psychiatry’s “genetic theories of original sin.”

    Nijinsky (good job!), Duane,and Anonymous have raised serious questions about your tendency to downplay environmental factors. Are you planning to speak to their points?

    In your last blog you promoted a view that downplayed the serious consequences of sexual, physical, and verbal abuse, and implied that talk therapy was more often a way to just keep people stuck in memories of their horror and stuck in a form of self pity. I am paraphrasing a combination of your blog and your FEW responses to challenges made in that discussion, but it seemed to be saying “just stop crying about it, buck up, and get on with your life.”

    Your current blog dovetails with this type of downplaying of the role of trauma and stress while staying stuck in the phony science of the current paradigm of the medical model.

    Jill, can you acknowledge some problems with your analysis? Can you acknowledge that you might be able to learn from some of the articulate and passionate writers at MIA, many of whom have experienced first hand what you write about in such a distant intellectual fashion?

    Richard

    .

    Report comment

  • Jill

    In your attempt to postulate a theory that free radicals may be a causative factor in what gets labeled “schizophrenia” aren’t you at the same time upholding the mythical “chemical imbalance” theory.

    In your fourth paragraph you state “What the antipsychotic drugs do: Antipsychotic drugs displace dopamine from its receptor sites on the post-synaptic neuron. The signaling that dopamine would otherwise induce in the post-synaptic neuron does not occur. In the presence of the antipsychotic drug, the downstream effects of excessive dopamine, psychotic symptoms, are precluded.”

    And then again in your last paragraph you state “Bottom Line: Before advising fellow physicians to increase the dosage of antipsychotic drugs to prevent brain volume reduction, it is important to show the following: first, demonstrate that symptoms, in fact, reflect the occurrence of a damaging process; second, demonstrate that any treatment intervention actually targets the damaging process itself and not just the downstream symptoms of this process.”

    The key parts of these quotes are: “…the downstream effects of excessive dopamine, psychotic symptoms…” and “…any treatment intervention actually targets the damaging process itself and not just the downstream symptoms of this process.”

    These quotes seem to be promoting the theory that excessive dopamine causes psychosis. Where is the evidence for this theory? Bob Whitaker’s “Anatomy of an Epidemic” and other critics of Biological Psychiatry have focused a great of attention dispelling this myth.

    And a final question would be: Do you accept the use of “brain disease” labels such as “schizophrenia” since you choose not to say “so-called” or place the label in quotes?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Anonymous

    Your writings on forced drugging (as they go deeper with each posting) have provided the most devastating and comprehensive critique of this form of psychiatric oppression that I have read anywhere. You have provided greater depth to my evolving belief system; keep writing.

    “The internet is killing psychiatry.”

    I think it is more accurate to say that MIA and other activist websites on the internet have “wounded” Biological Psychiatry.

    This oppressive paradigm of mistreatment will not be eliminated by word battles alone. Like all oppressive institutions throughout history it needs to be confronted in many arenas of battle.

    Our analysis desperately needs to be transformed into organized radical political action in the material world. I agree with Ted and Steven who commented above, although I do not put as much faith in the arena of legal battles as Steven appears to be doing.

    As we engage in more direct action we will learn even more about our enemies, and also find out more about who our genuine friends are in the battle to defeat Biological Psychiatry and dismantle this entire mental health system.

    And all this being an important part of a much larger struggle for social justice and human rights throughout the world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Patrick

    This was a great contribution to the MIA blog. I really like postings that make me think in a deeper way about some of my already accepted beliefs.

    Your analysis and exposure of Biological Psychiatry’s lack of credible ethical standards and their phony informed consent provides even more ammunition that can be used by all activists doing battle against their oppressive medical model.

    Well done; I look forward to reading more of your future postings.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    I work in community mental in a neighboring state from you. I do my best to steer people away from the medical model of Biological Psychiatry and all their drugs.

    The overwhelming weight of the status quo and the tendency to drift with the path of least resistance in this environment is incredibly hard to avoid. The push to “medicate” comes from so many directions including misinformed “clients” coming out of a culture of addiction requesting certain drugs.

    Many “clients” are coming into the clinic asking for medication management while already on benzos and antidepressants prescribed by PCP’S that are clearly not working except to make things worse. Now clinicians and doctors (if they are among the small minority who are educated about the dangers of Biological Psychiatry) are faced with the enormous task of helping them work through the complicated withdrawal process if we can educate them first that their “meds” are part of their problem.

    Sandra, I do have some success with a small percentage of individual people I work with, but what I observe going on around me is truly painful and at times demoralizing.

    It is time for some dramatic challenges to the status quo; this situation we face in our work will not change through patient education on blogs or through small incremental steps. We are up against powerful forces whose economic and political interests will not respond to the truth even when it slaps them in the face.

    I fantasize about a new type of activism that takes some of the best of the 1960’s while adding new approaches to waging the battle against all these oppressive forms of so-called treatment.

    What if at every place (conference, training, rounds, DSM 5 education etc.) where one of the representatives of Biological Psychiatry attempted to present their bogus science and harmful model, they were confronted by organized groups of people exposing and countering their lies and distortions.

    Wouldn’t it be righteous to create some genuine paranoia in their ranks so when they did speak their nonsense they would be nervously looking around the room for where the disruption of their status quo might be coming from.

    In the 60’s this happened all the time when defenders of the Vietnam war and the purveyors of racism and other backward ideology promoted their views. These types of confrontations often educated and activated large numbers of people in a short period of time.

    We currently have enough science, experience, and numbers to BEGIN to seriously challenge and disrupt their business as usual.

    What we lack is the right program,organization and collective will to make this happen at this time. The current situation begs for such an organized effort from all sections of the mental health field with survivor activists leading the way.

    Sandra, you are clearly a maverick in your field and doing some good work. Are you ready yet to take the next step to become part of a more activist movement?

    While I am asking you this question I am really attempting to put a finger on the pulse of the entire readership of the MIA blog about how they see the next steps for our movement.

    Dare to struggle, Dare to win!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Danny

    My reference to the phrase “mental masturbation” was not specifically addressed to Jill or her specific posting, but rather a commentary about the overall process at MIA.

    These discussions should not be about some sort of self gratification; just having our words published on a public internet forum.

    It is the interchange of ideas and debate about the critical issues to help us all deepen our grasp of reality inorder to become creative agents of change.

    It is a call for principled engagement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jill

    Where are you?

    If people are going to write provocative postings on MIA, then I believe they have the responsibility to respond to some of the criticisms of their viewpoints on these important questions. You responded in the beginning of the discussion but when things got a little hot you disappeared.

    Many people have taken precious time to pour out their emotions and ideas regarding extremely personal and often painful experience in the current mental health system. They deserve the decency and respect to have some type of response to their heartfelt emotions and ideas.

    This website exists to change the world; it should not be a place for mental masturbation without some accountability and without opportunities for transformation through the intense struggle of ideas.

    Jill, have you heard what people had to say? Have you learned anything from this important dialogue?

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Sera

    I’m a little late to your blog, but I must say I always learn something from both your intensely personal narratives as well as your commentary that continues to challenge us and clearly takes us out of our comfort zone. After all it is in the “discomfort zone” where most learning takes place.

    Having worked with people who have experienced trauma as well as with many overly stressed young mothers, there may be a relatively simple explanation for what you and others have experienced after suffering through the trauma of one or more miscarriages.

    Trauma like this obviously creates a very high fear response and many negative thought patterns related to anticipating another horrible outcome to becoming pregnant again. These negative thought patterns can sometimes become obsessive and very entrenched due to the effects of the trauma. Another one of those normal reactions to abnormal events.

    A mother can easily become convinced that the fetus will never finish the 9 months of development or that the new born baby will surely die in the first year of its life.

    Once the baby is born and it is clear that the miscarriage option did not occur and therefore it wasn’t the mother’s body that rejected the fetus, then surely it will be the actions of the mother herself that will lead to the baby’s death. Because after all 90 to 100% of the time the newborn baby will be in the physical care and presence of the mother.

    So therefore this tragic end to the life of the baby, which the mother is convinced will happen because of the traumatic effects of multiple miscarriages, can now only happen via a mistake, or deliberate action by the mother.

    Since no one can really predict when or how they are going to actually make a fatal mistake with a newborn; mistakes just happen. So therefore by shear deductive logic now the only way the inevitable death of the baby will occur (which the mother is quite convinced will happen because of her intense fear reinforcing her entrenched negative thought pattern) is by deliberate action of the mother.

    Hence the beginning of a intrusive fantasies of deliberate actions leading to the death of the baby; this can be the only logical outcome of being stuck in such a series of negative thought patterns.

    Of course the mother fights these thoughts and the last thing in the world she wants is for some harm to come to her child. And the more she fights these thoughts and attempts to suppress them out of shear terror and shame, the more intrusive they may become. Combine all this with the poor sleep pattern and the normal high stress level accompanying post partum women in today’s world and you have the makings of a potential severe emotional crisis.

    For most women this probably begins to subside over time as the mother starts to acquire a better sleep pattern and experiences the highs of positive interaction with the baby along with other family supports. And all these positives combined with the shear drudgery of parenthood may leave little time for such obsessive negative thoughts to retain a foothold in one’s thinking. And after all, as humans we are born with a cerebral cortex that allows us, over time, to figure out rational thought patterns from those that are irrational and do not serve our best interests as a functioning person in this world.

    Unfortunately these intrusive thoughts (mentioned above) are more common than people want to admit (thanks Sera for having the courage to discuss them) and like some one experiencing suicidal thoughts they need a SAFE place to discuss them. You have described in great detail the severe shortcomings of the way in which today’s mental health system deals with these issues.

    So many therapists and care givers today cannot tolerate the DISCOMFORT of dealing with trauma issues and the related negative thought patterns, including thoughts of self harm and the fear of harming others.

    How many women in your situation have been declared mentally ill, hospitalized, medicated with dangerous drugs, and had their child removed from their custody when all they needed was a sympathetic ear and a better way to understand how they might have ended up acquiring certain uncomfortable or intrusive thoughts.

    Sera, keep writing and challenging us in the “discomfort zone.”

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Kim

    I will add based on your most recent response that you seem to be promoting a view that “you are what you think you are.” and “to hell with what is going on in the environment around you.”

    I recently wrote a blog posting titled “Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: The Good, The Bad, The Limitations. It dealt exactly with the serious limitations of this type of thinking when doing therapy with people. The discussion that followed this posting was very educational to me and to others; I suggest you take some time to review it.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jill

    I am having some serious problems (as apparently some others are as well) with some of the things left out of your posting and some things stated in your responses.

    Some people expend a great deal of negative energy running from their trauma experiences throughout their life. And frequently it catches up to them when they least expect it, creating numerous emotional crises and quite often being a precipitating event leading to some type of addiction or being a triggering” thought pattern in some type of relapse.

    Addressing trauma with the right people in the right environment can be a very necessary healing experience.

    “… the fact that sexual abuse of children rarely involves negative emotion in the child at the time of the event.”

    I have worked in community mental health for over 20 years in a city with much poverty and trauma victims. I have used EMDR (Eye Movement, Desensitization, and Reprocessing) with numerous trauma victims, including many who have been sexually abused.

    When bad things happen to children they take on the badness as if it were their own. They make a very early decision in life that they are a bad person.

    My experience tells me that most children (even those very young) know something is wrong right from the beginning. The way the perpetrator behaves and manipulates gives early cues, and then of course there is the pleas, requests, demand, threats, or bribes for silence. This delivers clear messages that something is wrong. And if they remain silent (which most children do) out of confusion and fear and intimidation created by older authority figures, they blame themselves more and more as time goes by, because they now believe they were somehow responsible for what happened especially because they did not tell some one at the time.

    And what about how sexuality is understood and dealt with in this society in such a repressed way, especially with the influence of religion and theories of sin and original sin. This has huge influences on children, and with each year of age trying to come to terms with sexuality and sexual identity, the negative effects of this abuse only tends to grow.

    And this extends right into adulthood. All the emotions and understanding of fear, shame, and guilt are often still gummed up with the thinking level of the child. Core self esteem damaged with thoughts of being “bad” still with them as adults.

    Even when the child or person knows the perpetrator was wrong and believes in God they still feel bad because they say to themselves ” I must be bad because why would God allow this to happen to me?”

    “If a client feels hurt by a verbal assault, isn’t the problem that the client chooses to believe the name caller.”

    Yes, people need to ultimately evaluate the truth and falsehood in verbal assaults directed at them, but the way in which this concept was presented comes across as a “blame the victim” for their problems and oversimplifies emotional transformation.

    Verbal abuse cuts very deep and can be very destructive, and it is not so easily overcome.

    Kim, I can’t tell you how many people I have seen in counseling who were (in a way) re-traumatized by family members and friends when they were told some version of “you just need to get over it and move on with your life” because the family member did not want to understand and confront the reality of the trauma, especially having to perhaps deal with their own guilt if it happened “on their watch.” And others may shy away from confronting the reality of just how brutal some humans can be towards another. There are aspects of your responses that seem to be falling into exactly this line of thinking.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Wyatt

    Your narrative was courageous and so emotionally revealing that some of the discomfort you described in writing it was also experienced for some of us reading it. I experienced a similar feeling when reading Sera Davidow’s insightful posting “Body Politics”.

    It is the kind of discomfort that comes from suddenly peering through a window into someone’s very painful emotional world and being humbled at age 65 by my own ignorance of the incredible diversity of human experiences occurring in this historical era. It is this kind of ignorance that can lead to various forms of prejudice and harmful relations and treatment between people, and it all must be challenged.

    Your narrative has been an educational experience where initial discomfort can lead to greater understanding and unity.

    In your company I have experienced a gentle presence and spirit that I now know for sure comes form great pain, conflict, and transformation. I look forward to knowing you better and joining with you in the struggle to transform the world into a place where we can all be comfortable in whatever vessel carries our human spirit.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    Your critique of the current state of medicine certainly raises important questions beyond just being critical Of Biological Psychiatry. Biological Psychiatry must be challenged and defeated, but this will not fully happen without major systemic changes in our political and economic system.

    Your analysis only adds to my belief that as long as the medical profession takes place in a profit driven system we will continue to have the problems you have elucidated and they will only get worse.

    Even in Canada where you have a single payer government run medical system (a system that I believe is more humane than what exists in the U.S.) you have the problem that it operates in an environment surrounded on one side by the U.S. capitalist system.

    Skilled doctors in Canada often migrate into this country chasing higher incomes and more profitable practices leaving some shortages of doctors and longer waits for some medical procedures. Of course the profit system also encourages a culture of consumerism and the seeking of high standards of living from which even well intentioned doctors (and others throughout our society) are not immune.

    In the right system and environment people entering the medical field could get back to the more basic human desire to help people and pursue genuine science as a means to reach that end. There should not be a gap between some doctors making 500,000 a year and others making 90,000 a year; for that matter, these types of discrepancies in income should not exist in any profession or area of work.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • ssenerch

    There was no place to reply to your long post on “depression” written above at 2:42 AM.

    This was beautifully written and filled with so much insight and food for thought; it could be a featured blog posting in its own right.

    I must say that both you and Joanna have raised the quality of discourse on MIA to a whole new level. I hope you both remain active participants in the future.

    One point I will make after reading your above comments: Your description of the infinite ways despair and hopelessness can grip the human spirit in this historical era certainly raises questions about what it will take for the human species to rise above these conditions of life.

    In today’s world even if a depressed and hopeless person is provided all the best loving support, with a new diet, increased exercise, and the very best of CBT techniques for challenging negative thoughts etc., at the beginning or end of the day they still have to return to the relatively same environment (material conditions of life)from which they arose in the first place.

    A certain percentage of people due their own unique experience (excesses of trauma and other disappointments) will not have the ability or resilience to resist falling back into a hopeless state once again.

    And I believe this could happen to anyone. Nobody on this planet is immune from the possibility of developing addictions or the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness.” The material conditions of life can be just that overwhelming no matter how “normal” your upbringing or how resilient you think you are.

    This why I have, in some comments on MIA, been critical of capitalism and the fact that at this point in history we still have a class based system. I don’t believe one can be a thorough going critic of Biological Psychiatry without coming up against the questions of the way in which society is currently structured economically and politically.

    Biological Psychiatry emerged out of modern capitalism and both entities are intimately connected and depend on the other for their existence. The “genetic theories of original sin” promoted by Biological Psychiatry are clearly meant to “blame the victims” and obscure the daily trauma of poverty, patriarchy, sexism, racism, and wars of expansion that are so much a part of this system.

    I think Duane took offense that I used Bush in one of my analogies in my blog; I could have just as easily used Obama to make similar points and I will in the future. I don’t accept the “left vs. right” characterization within the current paradigm; I have no interest in defending the Democrats. In some ways they are worse because they pretend to be for the poor and the downtrodden but maintain and expand the same institutions of oppression, including Biological Psychiatry.

    Debates about “big vs. small” government are foolish. Governments should be of the people and for the people; the actual content of the government; that is, what is it made up of and whose interest is it serving is the key question to evaluate, not necessarily its size. After all I believe a society is possible in the future where we ALL govern our lives in some organized and cooperative fashion.

    I do not believe capitalism is the highest pinnacle of human achievement in social organization. Is this not a legitimate point to be made when discussing where human suffering comes from? And I think examining its shortcomings is intimately connected to our overall struggle against Biological Psychiatry. I would be dishonest if I did not share these views as part of my critique of the oppressive nature of our mental health system.

    I would hope that those who do not share this view will respect these issues being, at times, part of the discourse at MIA.

    Having said that, I don’t believe being anti or pro capitalism should become a dividing line question at this point in our struggle, only that we are civil and respectful in how we carry our discussion and our unified pursuit of organized resistance. And yes these discussions desperately need to be taken to the level of organized resistance; Biological Psychiatry can tolerate debate but we need to become their worst nightmare in the material world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ross

    I have no interest in defending CBT. My blog spends most of its content on pointing out the problems and limitations of CBT. This is why it seemed to offend those who are uncritically locked into that model.

    I said in one of my comments that certain aspects of CBT principles(such as challenging negative thoughts and one sided thinking) have some TACTICAL value and I do use them in my work and in my own life all the time. I believe most people do various forms of this as they negotiate their way through a very difficult world out there.

    I have found the dialogue coming from Joanna and ssenerch to be quite interesting and educational; it is deepening my own understanding of the problems with CBT and is exactly the reason why I introduced this topic in the first place. I hope that Brett Deacon and Ron Unger, who earlier took offense to a critical analysis of CBT, are reading these insightful responses. In fact I think this (humbling) dialogue should be mandatory reading for anyone engaged in counseling or therapy type work in the mental health field.

    Depression and other psychological phenomena like hearing voices are not something that needs to be taken away with pills or therapy. They have meaning in people’s life and also reflect what’s going on in some one’s environment. That meaning needs to be understood and perhaps one’s environment needs to be changed or radically transformed.

    CBT tends to divorce the thoughts and feelings from the environment that gave rise to them, which is why I labeled it as fundamentally an “idealist” conception of reality.

    In an evolutionary sense depression exists in the human species for a good reason. It teaches us those things in the world that we should treasure and value, for when they are gone we experience deep sadness and loss. It also teaches us those things in the world that we should avoid or change, because when we engage with them we experience pain or disappointment.

    To just say that negative thoughts are dysfunctional and one sided tends to dismiss their connections to an oppressive or traumatic environment. It also negates how the sadness and/or anger that arises from those material conditions can be transformed into a force for positive change in the world. There is nothing wrong with sadness or anger, it’s more about how we handle it and what we do with it for both ourselves and the world around us. Hopefully it helps us become creative agents of change.

    Obviously staying stuck in depression is not a good thing. In my first blog on MIA (Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease Model)I talk about how addiction and the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness” are actually coping mechanisms that are usually quite effective and creative for people in the short run, but if they persist for too long or get stuck in the “on” position they can become self-defeating and socially unacceptable over time. (And yes I’m aware that being socially unacceptable can be a good thing for social change).

    Usually the problems we talk about on MIA involving extreme states of emotional distress represent a grief, trauma, or fear reaction to one’s environment. So in the end isn’t all of this struggle we are having over ideas and theories on MIA really about ultimately changing ourselves in order to change the material and social world into a more humane place to live.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    I read MIA on a regular basis and the way CBT is talked about at times tends to exaggerate its importance in helping people solve their daily struggles of existence, and never really gets to the heart of the problems human beings face living on this planet.

    As Joanna has pointed out with her insights; CBT tends to skate above the economic, political, and cultural context from which people’s problems emerge. The Radical Therapy trend that emerged in the 60’s at least attempted to link people’s different forms of emotional and spiritual crises to the economic and political institutions that created the material conditions for them to exist in the first place.

    In my own work counseling people I use some elements of CBT all the time. CBT has some tactical usefulness, but it should not be promoted as a strategy.

    CBT should not be viewed as the antidote to Biological Psychiatry or as its replacement. My use of humor in this blog is meant to highlight its serious limitations as some type of strategy for radical change.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Faith

    There are no current examples of GENUINE socialism or communism to compare with modern capitalism. The historical summations of the two major socialist experiments (the Soviet Union and China which are now clearly functioning as capitalist economies and oppressive societies) have been written by those who would have us believe that capitalism is the highest pinnacle of human social organization.

    This would be like having the APA sum up the first attempt at a Soteria House type program (or any program attempting to create an alternative paradigm to Biological Psychiatry) where there may have occurred early problems or mistakes, and then they declare the entire enterprise a disaster and inherently flawed, never to be attempted again.

    The theoretical principle of Communism is “From each according to your abilities to each according to your needs.” In other words you give all you can (work, creativity etc.) to advance the society in which you live and only take from it what you need. Why can’t human beings create a society that operates in this way?

    Of course it might take many generations perhaps, several hundred years of social transformation, to transform human nature in this fashion. Isn’t this possible?

    Faith, there are many people who write on this website, including yourself, who seem to profess high moral values of human sharing ,love and cooperation as part of a search for a better world. These represent very lofty goals. For those of us who dream of such things: are we just human mutations that run counter to the true genetically based and inherently selfish nature of human beings? The defenders of capitalism would most definitely have us believe this is true.

    “I wonder about the causal relationship between poverty and “mental illness” – which comes first and why.”

    Of course they both interpenetrate with each other, but I would place more emphasis on the environment in which human beings live. Poverty creates more overall stress on the human mind and spirit. The stress of daily survival, the higher instances of various forms of trauma, poor nutrition, and the overall sense of powerlessness and the inability to control or predict what may occur in their environment- all this would naturally push human beings beyond their limits of psychological tolerance.

    The symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness” or “addictions” are actually coping mechanisms (often quite creative) that are usually very effective in the short term but unfortunately they sometimes get stuck in the “ON” position and then over time turn into self-defeating and socially unacceptable behaviors.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Dbunker

    Reading your comments about this insightful blog posting makes me “feel insane.”

    “What we have today, and is being demonized as capitalism, is an army of cronies who’ve commandeered capitalism and the freedom it ensures under the guise of assuring equality of outcome.”

    Dracula cannot be persuaded to suck water instead of blood. The people running this system are acting exactly the way a good capitalist is suppose to be behaving. Chase the highest rate of profit by any means necessary or be eaten up by your competitors. Freedom, is in reality, only ensured for those on top of the pyramid; those on the bottom are “free” to be exploited.

    “…Securities and Exchange Commission, a Federal Trade Commission, an FDA, an FBI, a Fed DOJ, an FCC, etc. If those Agencies were doing the job they were supposed to be doing, Psych/Pharma wouldn’t even exist…”

    These agencies only exist to make people “feel” like there is some oversight, regulation, and “checks and balances” within the capitalist system. Their members are chosen by those in power and completely bought off by the system; if they dare challenge the ruling class agenda they will be removed in a heartbeat.

    “It doesn’t get anymore anti-capitalist than Nazism…”

    You cannot be serious! Nazi Germany was a form of fascist rule that was thoroughly capitalist in its most naked form; without any pretense of democracy covering up the class nature of the society.

    “Under true, free market capitalism, individuals retain the power to walk away from any and every such unequal division of power and social group.”

    Once again you turn reality on its head. Free markets only exist for those who own capital; the rest of us have to sell our labor power to the highest bidder. You do not have the freedom or “power to walk away” from anything unless you have the basics of food and shelter, which is a difficult daily struggle for those unlucky (by accident of birth) to be at the bottom of the economic pyramid.

    Biological Psychiatry, has its origins in a commodity based society where the drive for profit reigns supreme. Their “genetic theories of original sin” are part of a “blame the victim” paradigm that turns people’s attention away from the daily trauma of classism, patriarchy, sexism, racism, homophobia and Imperialist wars of expansion that underlies this culture of violence.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Faith

    Your writing is raw, unfiltered and inspiring.

    Your poignant description of your own unquenchable thirst for human connectedness in a world that demands that we all join together and become creative agents of change – this captures my own sense of spirituality.

    This is coming from someone who is atheistic and who constantly craves tangible evidence that Revolution is both necessary and possible.

    The “necessary” smacks us in the face everyday. The “possible” is more elusive.

    Your personal call to action seems to capture the universality of youthful rebellion that so desperately needs to join with us aging veterans who deeply yearn for a better world.

    Your writing has helped make the “possible” more believable. Thank you!

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Dorothy

    I have heard bits and pieces of your story before, but never in such a well constructed and powerful narrative as you have written and spoken above.

    This not only brought tears to my eyes, but most definitely deepens my hatred of Biological Psychiatry and the oppressive character of the psychiatric profession that gave rise to today’s only slightly more sophisticated form of human oppression. This should be required reading for anyone who dares to step foot in the mental health field with the intention of helping people in a state of extreme emotional distress.

    Dorothy, your courage and resilience, and most definitely, your Revolutionary spirit is truly inspiring. I hope to be there with you at the barricades. We all have much work to do.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Paris

    Thanks for your clarification. I agree that:

    “It will have to come from “us”, the masses, we’ll have to break out of the trance of feeling like powerless sheep and explore creative ways to take our power and responsibility back.”

    However, I disagree with parts of these statements:

    “So in many ways “we” are very responsible for everything that goes on in society….By not educating ourselves and thinking critically, by not taming our own fear and greed, it is “we”, the masses, who maintain the status quo.”

    In many ways these kind of statements can easily fall into “blame the victim” type thinking as well as obscure the oppressive class nature of our society.

    People stuck in poverty who comprise the underclasses in our society represent some of the largest sections of the masses who are victimized by Biological Psychiatry. Look at all the kids in the inner city or in foster care who are on brain damaging stimulants and antipsychotic drugs. Look at the fact that single parents immersed in poverty and unable to fully control their children are often forced to make “Sophie’s choice” like decisions that allow their children to be labeled and drugged in order to receive disability money for survival, especially since the welfare system was overhauled in the 90″s.

    People who are beaten down on a daily basis in this class system do NOT have the same opportunities to become educated and learn to think critically. The blame for the terrible choices mentioned above should NOT be shared equally between the oppressed and oppressor.

    The slaves were NOT equally responsible for slavery because they did not rise up and overthrow the system sooner. The plantation masters were smart enough to not allow their slaves to learn how to read and become educated.

    Today, while no one is (in theory) denied the right to be educated or learn to think critically, the systemic nature of a class society has a way of creating the kind of extreme distress of daily survival that makes it very difficult to have the ability or capacity to learn and engage in political activism.

    Even people more educated from the middle classes have been brainwashed in very sophisticated ways to accept the paradigm of Biological Psychiatry. Many who write on this website have discussed the fact that they themselves ultimately chose to take psych drugs or enter the psych ward of a hospital. Was this really an “Informed Choice.” I think not.

    So my main point is this: in this historical era of class based society, I believe there is a necessary value in having an “us vs.them” when assigning responsibility for the oppressive nature of the status quo.

    People need to be educated about the true nature of this system, including who runs it and what their stake is in maintaining the current inequalities. To obscure this in any way is to deny the oppressed the tools of their own liberation.

    That being said, I do think those of us creating a movement for liberation must be prepared to constantly interrogate ourselves regarding out own thinking and behavior. We have all been raised within a culture of oppression and have been negatively influenced by this ideology and practice.

    We cannot build a successful movement with revenge being our motivation; we must have a vision and a daily practice of a truly humane alternative to the way things are. It is a constant battle (especially for those of us who have had more opportunity and privilege) to not write off “the sheep” and seek escape in the consumer nature of capitalist society.

    I do believe that despite the extreme difficulties confronting the underclasses in our society and the sophisticated forms of brainwashing and “buying off” of the middle class, that if we persevere with education and activist struggle we can defeat Biological Psychiatry as part of a broader liberation movement for transformative change on a planet wide basis.

    In struggle, Richard

    Report comment

  • Paris

    This was a great essay and critique of Biological Psychiatry’s cancerous paradigm of so-called treatment, however I found parts of the last paragraph disappointing.

    “So what do we do about it? What will it take before we (collectively speaking) finally recognize the enormous harm being done by this cancer that we have somehow set into motion?”

    First off, while I believe in personal accountability I think the use of the second “we” in the above sentence is misdirected when it comes to identifying who is mainly responsible for the sick nature of the paradigm ruling over us. “We” the people did not create or set into motion Biological Psychiatry’s medical model; we are the victims of these oppressive institutions and the powerful forces who run them. We need to be clear on this. I hope you will re-clarify your thinking on this point.

    Secondly, when it comes to the question of where do we go from here?: your emphasis is on “education and critical thinking…” and “developing qualities…” of a positive nature “within us that continuously strives towards health and wholeness.”

    I also believe “education and critical thinking” is vitally important to our movement as well as many of the individual values you propose to emphasize. Both of these points should represent ONE powerful leg upon which our movement runs.

    The other leg not mentioned (and vitally necessary) is the critical role (SECOND LEG) of decisive political action confronting the system of Biological Psychiatry. This takes individual transformations to the level of collective action.

    Yes, WE NEED TO KNOW THE WORLD INORDER TO CHANGE IT. Educating people will help arouse more people to take action.

    But. WE ALSO HAVE TO CHANGE THE WORLD INODER TO KNOW IT. Each time we engage the material world in action we will know it better and thus be more educated and more aroused in greater numbers. This dialectic of KNOWING AND DOING represents the spiral development of revolutionary change.

    As a movement (in its early stage) we clearly have enough knowledge and desire for change to be doing both more education AND more direct action.

    Paris, could you please clarify your thinking on these points? Your writing style and analysis is excellent and I sense you are an activist as well. Do you agree that we need more organization and action at this stage of our movement?

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for the feedback.

    I agree about the overall intentions of the so-called “war on drugs.” It has been quite useful to U.S. Imperialism’s efforts to maintain economic and political control of Central and South America by providing an excuse to use counter insurgency against left wing rebels in certain countries. And here at home it often targets the victims of addiction and distracts people from addressing the systemic sources of human distress and misery.

    In part 3 of my blog series I make a few references to the contribution of Stanton Peele. You might find this interesting because it deals with alternatives to the disease model(Twelve Step) for dealing with addictions or bad habits. I, as well, wish I could consistently apply these approaches to my own life to deal with bad habits.

    BTW I just received my copy of the book by Gabor Mate called “In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts: Close Encounters with Addiction.” This book was recommended by Donna in one of our recent exchanges on this subject. I have heard really good things about his take on addictions and look forward to reading it.

    Keep writing!

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Anonymous

    I hope I speak for many people here at MIA that are thrilled that you have come out of retirement. Your voice and critical analysis of Biological Psychiatry is so vital to our movement.

    I never skim your postings and find your overall critiques very compelling and educational.

    During one of your retirement periods last year I posted my first blog entry titled “Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease Model” Part 1 (this can be accessed by going to the writers section at the top of the blog heading). At the time I felt deprived that you were not participating and did not (or could not) respond with a critique or any particular feedback.

    If you have the time to review especially Part 1, I would very much appreciate your feedback on the analysis presented.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Dr. Pies

    Just to remind you, not everyone participating on the MIA website is a psychiatric survivor. Many of us work within the mental health system and we see on, a daily basis, the current content of the work done by your psychiatric profession.

    I have worked in a community mental health clinic as a licensed mental health counselor for over 20 years. I have witnessed, first hand, how Biological Psychiatry’s disease/medication model has completely taken over all aspects of so-called treatment.

    This particular medical model has become an unmitigated disaster for most people seeking desperate help, and has seriously handicapped well meaning caregivers attempting to support people in extreme states of psychological distress.

    Dr. Pies you attempt to portray yourself as one of the more enlightened doctors within your profession who is critical of some of the more extreme examples of misguided care. Sera Davidow has, in her usual eloquent fashion, challenged you regarding the inherent power differential of psychiatrists when it comes to the issues of psychiatric diagnoses and forced treatment.

    As someone who is not anti-psychiatry, but most definitely is anti-Biological Psychiatry, I want to challenge you on these additional critical questions:

    Where do you stand on the takeover of your profession (over the last 40 years) by the Biological Psychiatry disease model of treatment? (Biological Psychiatry defined as: the wedding of genetic theories of “mental illness” with Big Pharma, the leadership of the APA, and the major training institutions of modern psychiatry)

    Where do you stand on the mass drugging of today’s youth with stimulants, antidepressants, and,increasingly, with antipsychotic drugs?

    Where do stand on the new evidence that antipsychotic drugs (now the largest selling category of medication at 18 billion per year) clearly cause far more harm than good and worsen the long term life outcomes for millions of people diagnosed with major “mental illness?”

    Where do you stand on the corrupted nature of almost all drug research, where it is controlled and manipulated by Big Pharma with ghost writers and buried studies that show lack of efficacy or actual harm done to patients?

    Where do you stand on the fact that there are no scientifically proven genetic markers for “mental illnesses” and no credible evidence for the still widely promoted “chemical imbalance” theory?

    Where do you stand on the fact that the current institutions training psychiatrists have a (genetic/disease/drug) curriculum completely controlled and dictated by Big Pharma?

    And lastly, where do you stand on the current prescribing pattern of today’s Biological Psychiatrists?

    Honestly, Dr. Pies, how many patients have you treated with the symptoms of depression, anxiety, and other extreme forms of emotional angst at living in the current world, who ended up leaving your office without a script for psych drugs?

    How many did you actually only prescribe regular exercise, meditation, and active placeboes, such as fish oil and other over the counter vitamins?

    How many patients did you make an effort to give them the scientific evidence that these non drug approaches actually work better without all the side effects?

    How many patients have you told that antidepressants are no better than placeboes and are actually addictive for some people with often brutal withdrawal syndromes?

    How many patients have you told that Benzos, outside of a hospital setting and beyond 3-4 weeks of use, are perhaps the most dangerous category of drug in the world and are highly addictive and cause far more harm than good?

    Dr. Pies, if your honest answers to some of the above questions is that you DO speak out against some of the problems with Biological Psychiatry’s control of your profession and DO promote nondrug approaches, then I say how much do you speak out and where? These are not intellectual debates; these are actual life and death (and brain death) questions for millions of people.

    We had an expression in the 60’s: “If your not part of the solution than your part of the problem.”

    If activist psychiatrists (there are a few that write at MIA) and other “enlightened” psychiatrists do not seize back control of their profession from the current dictatorship by Biological Psychiatry, then it will surely be swept into the dust bin of history.

    Dr. Pies, if you, and others in your profession truly cared about the damage being done by the today’s (disease/drug) medical model, then you and your colleagues should be currently plotting (and taking the risks) to wreak havoc within the APA and other psychiatric organizations to isolate and defeat Biological Psychiatry’s dictatorship.

    Dr. Pies, if all new psychiatric drug prescriptions were suspended today (clearly a demand that could be easily defended) there would be, at least, several decades of valuable work that knowledgeable and empathic psychiatrists could do to help people safely withdraw and learn to how to live with less damaging psychiatric drugs.

    Dr. Pies, where do you stand on the questions I have raised about Biological Psychiatry?

    Finally, Dr. Pies, in the 1960’s many rightwing critics of the activist movement would shout at us: “Love it or Leave it.”
    I will refrain from shouting at you, but will instead whisper our response and the appropriate answer to the current state of your psychiatric profession; “Change it or Lose it!”

    Many of us are prepared to work with you to “change it” for the better; this will require all of us to go through major transformations in both thinking and being. Some of this struggle could, at times, be emotionally painful. But it is absolutely necessary, and the goal of a truly humane system of support and healing will be more than worth the effort.

    Dr. Pies, if you and your colleagues choose not to work with us to “change it” (Biological Psychiatry) and end up ignoring our critical analysis, then you should know that we are clearly building a movement that will gladly be prepared to “change it” for you.

    Richard D. Lewis LMHC,CAS

    Report comment

  • Seth

    Thanks for taking the time and the risks to educate us about the truly contradictory nature of Peter Breggin’s thinking.

    I read some of the sources you provided on Breggin’s website and I am very aware of the thoroughly reactionary fascist views of Michael Savage; and I do not use the word fascist very lightly.

    Breggin was a major influence in my development as an activist against Biological Psychiatry, but it is quite clear that his political compass is totally broken at this time.

    9/11 and the intensifying of international political contradictions caused many people on the left(or near the left)to lose their political bearings. I had heard that that both Breggin and Szasz were Libertarians.

    Libertarians often take the concepts of individual liberty to such extremes that they are unable to be critical of capitalism/imperialism. We cannot fully understand and defeat Biological Psychiatry without understanding and opposing the true nature of a profit based system of economic and political organization.

    Thanks again Seth

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    Thanks for taking the time to reread and comment on my blog series on “Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease Model.”

    My clear intention in this series is to critically analyze the Disease Model and genetic determinism.

    I think you may have misinterpreted my use of the phrase “While there probably is something called a “genetic predisposition” for these two types of problems we must question how this concept can ever be useful.” Here I am making reference to both addiction and the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness.”

    First off in the preceding paragraph I state the following:

    “All human beings are genetically predisposed to develop addictions and the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness.” Nobody stands above or is immune from potentially developing these problems.”

    Obviously I am indicating that under sustained abnormal conditions, such as trauma and extreme stress a normal human reaction might be to turn to addiction (self medication) or develop other symptoms such as psychosis, depression, excessive anxiety etc. as a needed coping mechanism; anybody and everybody would be susceptible to this process and is genetically predisposed to do so.

    That is, human genes x,y … exposed to z environment(traumatic, harmful, unsafe etc.) in a certain historical era would tend to produce a common set of coping behaviors. This is all a necessary part of the evolutionary survival of our species.

    Then in a following paragraph I state “…more importantly, there IS a genetic predisposition for RECOVERY from addiction and for what gets labeled as so called “mental illness.” Here I am trying to indicate (contrary to the Disease Model) that human genes x,y… now exposed to Q environment (safe, secure,and socially nurturing etc.) have the capacity to overcome these symptoms that may have been transform from necessary coping mechanisms to self defeating and socially unacceptable behaviors. And then under these new conditions return back to a more normal or homeostatic state of being, and perhaps through this spiral development of survival experience and newly acquired resilience the individual may evolve at a higher level of normal.

    When it comes to genetic predispositions no two human beings will exactly be alike. Everyone will have slightly different experiences even when they are in a similar environment, and everyone has slight variations in genetic makeup within the species. Taken as a whole these variations between humans are relatively small so the thresholds of tolerance to trauma and extreme stress between individuals will also be small. Those small differences will be based on both environmental experience combined with one’s particular genetic makeup. If one person’s mind splits off into psychosis when subjected to torture at a slight difference in time to another person, the difference would have to be attributed to the dialectical interplay between both human experience and to genetic makeup. In this situation it is the height of nonsense and misdirected human resources to be spending billions of dollars to understand the genetic piece of this particular tiny equation. It quickly turns into “genetic theories of original sin”; a reactionary form of genetic determinism to misdirect people away from the sick and oppressive society in which we live that creates the material conditions for trauma and other forms of enforced misery.

    Robert Sapolsky, the Standford primatologist and neurobiologist, wrote a very insightful essay called “Peace Among Primates.” (google it; it’s a good read) In it he states:

    “…the age old “nature vs. nurture” debate is silly. The action of genes is completely intertwined with the environment in which they function; in a sense; it is pointless to even discuss what gene x does, and we should consider instead only what gene x does in environment y. Nonetheless if one had to predict the behavior of some organism on the basis of one fact one might still want to know whether the most useful fact would be about genetics or about environment.”

    Sapolsky then goes on to recount a remarkable example in the primate world where the environment clearly trumped genetics.

    Donna, I hope I have clarified my position. If you remember when Bob Fancher was on this website spewing out nuggets of genetic determinism I was motivated to lead the charge against some of his backward positions. I did the best I could even though this is not my area of expertise. I am sure I need to do more reading on this subject and would be interested how Jay Joseph would come at these questions.

    I appreciate both your overall knowledge and tenacity when dealing with controversial questions on MIA. I plan on ordering both the Mate books that you recommended on addiction and capitalism; thanks for the tips and the challenging way you make me think.

    If possible, I would like to correspond with you via e-mail on a few other important topics; I can be reached at – [email protected]

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    I share your detest of genetic theories in explaining human behavior. I often use Ashley Montagu’s phrase “genetic theories of original sin” which he used to describe the Sociobiologists, the forerunners of today’s genetic determinists. And since I do not beleive in “sin” I certainly do not believe in related genetic theories. Perhaps you misinterpreted one of my comments or maybe I made a mistake in how I presented a certain concept.

    I am off to work soon so I cannot respond more at this time. If you want to dialogue more about my addiction series you could do it under part 3 of my series; I will check it now and then. I appreciate your feedback very much as well as your complements.

    You Go Sister! Comradely Richard

    Report comment

  • Monica

    That was a good article on the importance of Vegus Nerve in regulating mood. I recently attended a training on Food,Mood, and Cognition which raised a number of important questions about diet and its influence on brain function.

    Ninety percent of the seratonin in the human body is in the gastric system along with fifty percent of the dopamine. SSRI’s and antipsychotic drugs perturb the seratonergic and dopaminergic system in the brain by destroying (hopefully temporarily) the brain’s state of homeostasis. Is it any wonder that these drugs can do so much harm to people struggling with extreme states of psychological distress?

    I am convinced that yoga can be a tremendous tool in improving mood and in the recovery from the damage done by Biological Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Faith

    I am pleased that you left room for atheists in your discussion of spirituality when you said:

    “…spirituality…has been expanded to refer in a more subjective way and general sense to quality of life as defined by interconnectedness, sense of purpose, and meaningful self-worth…”

    I am sure there are many people who read MIA who believe that religion can be harmful to people by promoting superstition, the shame of “orginal sin” , historically defending an oppressive status quo, upholding patriachy, homophobia, and oppressive concepts of madness (Demonic possession)etc.

    I am among those that believe that religion falls infinitely short of being able to define and set a true moral compass for humaity, and falls infinitely short of appreciating and exploring the true wonders and mysteries of the universe.

    Faith I found great interest in reading about your spiritual journey.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • We cannot truly understand Biological Psychiatry and how to defeat it without undestanding the true nature of capitalism. This was an excellent posting and quite relavent to the essential nature of the MIA website.

    I believe it was Duane (for whom I have great respect and agree with most of the time) who once admonished people on this website for attacking capitalism, the military, and religion. These subjects should not be off limits because they provide an important context for understanding the nature and survival of Biological Psychiatry.

    Capitalism creates empires and turns everything in its wake into a commodity to be bought and sold; the military defends and extends the empire; and religion(in most situations) defends the status quo and directs people away from activism and toward individual salvation. These can all be critical subjects to be explored in our movement, and besides we all need to have a little fun somtime.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    Thankyou for taking the time to address the issue of the smug way in which Nijinsksy was treated in this thread. BTW you have been quite prolific recently with great spirit and content.

    I wanted to come to Nijinsky’s defense on some issues but did not have enough time to give this tender subject enough care and justice. I carefully read all the posts and believe she brought up some important contradictions in religious morality. I feel bad that she was left alone in such difficult waters, but she held her own quite well.

    Donna, you sort of point out one of the fundamental problems with Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy and therapy in general; that is, this believe that “we are what we think.” These therapy techniques have some pragmatic usefulness, but they ultimately down play the powerful role of the environment, including the role of trauma and other forms of systemic injustice.

    How can we expect every person subjected to on going abuse and/or abject poverty to simply start thinking positively or start challengeing negative thought patterns about the actual nature of their predicament. Yes, some people can find their way, but this system crushes human resilience on a daily basis; we need fundamental systemic changes in our society to afford everyone the opportunity to achieve their full human potential with basic human rights and a chance to live a safe and productive life.

    Imagine your given the task to provide counseling to a serial killer who is in jail awaiting trial for multiple murders, and he presents as depressed and suicidal. Imagine trying to use the power of positive thinking in this setting or using CBT or REBT to convince him that his negative thoughts about himself are actually “onesided” or overly “negative.”

    Yes, helping people change negative thought patterns has a role but it is better when people can also understand the true source of their oppression and actually be involved in changing for the better the material world in which they live. It is this process that truly leads to both tranformational thinking and doing.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jeffery

    People in the community mental health system are still smoking in high numbers. Don’t forget that cigars are not taxed like cigarettes. So the tabacco companies make these small cigars that look exactly like a cigarette (they even have filters on them) and sell them for 2 dollars a pack. Capitalism is a wonderful thing!

    I agree that smoking is used as an excuse by Biological Psychiatry to hide the damaging effects of the psych drugs on life spans.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Lancet article on smoking among the so-called “mentally ill” misses an essential point. This bogus article, of course, starts by raising genetic issues as the first possible explanation for the high rates of smoking when it uses the phrase “…common gentic pathways may increase the risk.”

    You don’t have to be a genius to know why people on antipsychotic medications might tend to smoke more and also drink alot of caffeinated beverages. WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS BLOCK DOPAMINE RECEPTORS IN THE BRAIN. WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THESE DRUGS CAUSE LETHARGY, IMPAIRED THINKING, AND DIFFICULTY FOCUSING AMONG OTHER DAMAGING SIDE EFFECTS.

    It makes perfect sense that under these circumstances that people on these terrible drugs would seek out any substance (Duh!, like nicotine and caffeine) that would boost dopamine levels in the brain to compensate for these imposed deficits in brain chemistry.

    For this to not even be mentioned as a possibility is the height of intellectual and scientific incompetance and another example of Biological Psyhiatry’s desire to hide the truth of their crimes.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    I really appreciate your willingness to reexamine some of your comments and be open to feedback given the volatile and highly charged nature of this topic. This is especially true given some of your own traumatic family experiences perpetrated by Biological Psychiatry. BTW I always capitalize Biological Psychiatry as I would any significant reactionary or oppressive historical entity.

    Don’t think for minute that people on this website who are working inside the mental health system aren’t deeply affected by all the provocative comments such as yours and people like Anonymous (who unfortunately has been absent for a while). They make me reevaluate my choices at work on a daily basis and provoke me to do everything possible to expose Biological Psychiatry and work towards dismantling this oppressive system.

    While I have not directly experienced the oppression of this system on myself or my family, I have seen some of my clients die and others have their brains fried by the chemical cocktails of psychotropic drugs. It is difficult enough to listen to all the multiple stories of horrific traumas that seem to pour out of every fiber of this profit mad system, but to see human resilience crushed before your very eyes under the facade of it being so-called “medical treatment”,this can be almost too much to bear when your intentions were to provide empathic help to people in desperate need.

    The more people working inside the system can learn from and unite with and be a part of the survivor/activist movement on the outside, the sooner we will be able to create an unstopable force for radical change. Let’s keep very SHARP YET PRINCIPLED struggle going strong to create this unity of purpose.

    Comradely, Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    Again thankyou for the feedback. I believe you may be more well read on addiction than myself. I plan to explore some of the sources you mention.

    A quick thought about the book, Addiction Is A Choice. I liked the content of this book more than the title. No body really “chooses” to become an addict. I believe it is more often a process that gradually sneaks up on a person. These behaviors like the symptoms that get labeled as “mental Illness” are really coping mechanisms that are usually quite effective for a period of time before they are transformed into self destructive and self-defeating beahvior patterns. Nobody plans on being an addict or makes a specific decision to become one. When someone finally becomes aware that they have an addiction then “recovery” is a choice as well as “staying in addiction.” This is when “confronting the addiction voice” becomes both necessary and possible as a technique for “demanding” recovery.

    Donna, I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to read Part 1 and Part 2 of my blog; if not I would appreciate more feedback if you get a chance. Go to the writers section above and scroll down to Richard Lewis; The Search for the Miracle Cure is Part 2 and Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease Model is Part 1.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    Thanks for your thoughtful response to my last posting. I appreciate the positive feedback about my blog on addictions, especially from someone as well read and as experienced in dealing with these issues. I will respond to the addiction topic under my particular blog.

    As to the question of defeating Biological Psychiatry and their Bible the DSM; you are absolutely correct to rail against the DSM labels and the stigmatizing it represents. However, the reality is that that millions of people in this country end up seeking help from mental health professionals to deal with addictions, trauma, depression, anxiety… the misery goes on and on. Community mental clinics are on the front lines of receiving these admissions, and the vast majority of these people have Medicaid insurance. As you know poverty creates more stress and trauma than within other sections of the population and unfortunately these clinics are the only place at this time that these people can turn to for help. I say unfortunately because when I started working as a therapist 20 yrs ago there was only one psychiatrist at my clinic now there are 5-7. Back then I could clearly state that most people were probably helped by their experiences in therapy; only a minority saw a psychiatrist and received drug prescriptions. Today with the complete takeover by Biological Psyhiatry and the proliferation of Psych drug prescriptions I cannot say MOST people anymore.

    In community mental health the only way these people can receive help is if the therapist uses a diagnosis code. Due to the lack of income these people are unlikely to attend therapy if they have to pay for it, even on a sliding scale; therefore Greenberg’s negotiating fee approach in this environment will not work.

    Donna, there are many dedicated people making very little money who are committed to working with this section of the population. This is the front lines for dealing with the human “symptoms” of a very DISEASED AND SICK PROFIT HUNGRY SYSTEM. They are NOT just good intentioned well meaning people “paving the road to hell.” Many do good work and help people despite an increasingly backward working environment. Many hate the takeover of the Medical Model and all the drugs and labeling that goes on but there is a sense of demoralization and resignationm to this oppresive system. But there is the material conditions for resistance and rebelion; “a single spark can start a prairie fire.”Yes there is also ignorance,comlicity, and elitism and it all needs to be challenged.

    But I will repeat myself; to declare that everyone working in the mental health field is “evil, corrupt, and psychopathic” is simply wrong, unproductive, and represents a losing strategy for defeating Biological Psychiatry. We need to find ways to unite with people to wage struggle both outside and within the system to expose the abuses, labeling, and mass drugging. The survivor movement can win over and unite with people from ALL sectors of the mental health field, including psychiatrists; this will NOT happen if people are slammed “up against the wall” and told they are “evil” and part of the enemy.

    Donna, 50% percent of my caseload involves addictions the rest involve a myriad of other problems. I am forced to still use labels to get those people help. Dr. Sandra Steingard and Dr. Dan Fisher still use labels and as are other particpants on this website. Are we evil and part of the enemy?

    As I said before I discuss the problems with labels with all the people I see; I try to minimize the severity of the label. I speak out at all team meetings; I am a constant thorn in the side of the medical department. I plan to fight for a boycott of the DSM 5; yes, I know that the ICD9 codes are no better and I plan to say that, but it can strike a blow against the APA and raise consciousness in the process of the struggle.

    Even my participation on this blog is a potential threat to my job. Would you have me quit my job in community health? If you had a relative or friend with Medicaid who needed help would you rather have them see me or someone else for whom you have no idea how they think or operate as a therapist? If I needed this kind of help I would see a person like Cindy, even though I had some issues with her use of language and I agree with Duane that to call it a “war on therapy” was way over the top. If I had to see a psychiatrist I would choose a person like Dr. Sandra Steingard even though I have challenged her for not going far enough in her criticisms of Biological Psychiatry.

    Donna, I can handle your criticisms; I’ve been in the trenches of revolutionary struggles in my past. But others who you attack with your too broad a target may not have that thick of a skin. You will drive them away from our movement or into the camp of the enemy. And by the way there is nothing wrong with “political correctness”; since when is being correct wrong. As I stated before I have much respect for your insight and critical analysis of Biological Psychiatry; many times I avoided responding to a particular posting because you said exactly what needed to be fought for in those struggles.

    On the issue of strategy I believe you are off the mark. Narrow the target within this particular movement. Biological Psychiatry is the main enemy not all mental health professionals; unite all who can be united around a radical agenda of defeating Biological Psychiatry and dismantling the entire mental health system. Encourage and challenge people within the system to raise their consciousness and take risks to expose Biological Psychiatry’s disease/psychotropic drug model. We all have much work to do. Dare to struggle, Dare to win. Let’s all become Biological Psychiatry’s worst nightmare!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Donna

    Your criticisms of Cindy’s use of Biological Psychiatry’s language without quotations to denote questioning or a critical analysis, has been appropriate. It is also appropriate to seriously challenge people working in the so-called mental health field about their complicity with the “Disease/psychotropic drug Model” or any elements (even shades of thinking)that reflect any attitude of superiority over the people they engage with in a so-called therapeutic relationship. Cindy did respond and amend some of her comments from the original post to address some people’s earlier critisms on these questions.

    Donna, I have followed many of your writings and contributions to this blog. I have great respect for your unrelenting criticisms of Biological Psyhiatry and other comments you have made questioning practical and ideological aspects of the current forms of activism. But it is off the mark and counter productive to our movement to place all therapists and mental health workers in the same camp as Biological Psychiatry. And if you want to know what I mean when I refer to “our movement”; I mean a movement whose goal is the complete defeat of Biological Psychiatry and the complete dismantling of the mental health system as part of a revolutionary movement to transform the material conditions in this country that gave rise to this reactionary trend, and that creates on a daily basis all the forms of stress, violence, patriachry, racism, sexism,and classism that ultimately causes the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness” or “addictions.”

    I have worked in a community health clinic for 20 yrs and watched the final stages of the takeover of the medical model. I have fought this takeover for many yrs and have taken some risks in that struggle and will continue to do so with even more intensity. I read my first Peter Breggin book in 1991 (I first became a political activist in the 1960’s) and was provoked to write my disertation for my masters degree on the dangers of psychotropic drugs; I likened the prolific use of these medications to the AIDS crisis at that time. I have contributed to the MIA website in discussions for two years. I have written a three part series on “Addiction, Biological Psyhiatry, and the Disease Model.” Part 3 of my series is currently up on the blog. I encourage you to read this series in a critical manner to determine if I still harbor any of the ideology or elitist thinking represented by Biological Psychiatry. I welcome any feedback, for I have learned a great deal over the past few years while intently reading the comments and critiques of the survivor/activist movement; my views are constantly evolving.

    Donna, there is a general alienation and the rumblings of dissent among those working in the mental health field. They know something is terribly wrong (with a primitive level of understanding) with this complete takeover and dictatorship by Biological Psychiatry. The suvivor/activist movement can play an important role in educating and arousing a significant section of people working in this field. I believe it is possible at this time to even unite with a small minority of psychiatrists to wreak havoc in the APA and throughout their profession to target this takeover by Biological Psyhiatry and build a movement to totally dismantle the mental health system. By the way this does not mean that I am uncritical of psyhiatry before the advent of Biological Psyhiatry, but I believe as this movement develops all forms of elitism and hierarchy of power will be challenged along the way.

    To place everyone working in the mental health field in the camp of the enemy is not only wrong but will lead to the defeat of our movement and isolate those working in that way to the fringes. We must UNITE ALL WHO CAN BE UNITED around a radical agenda; this is both necessary and possible.

    Therapy does help some people. It is nothing more than another form of “coaching.” Some coaches are good and successful, others not so much; some are terrible. And it is certainly appropriate to evaluate and critque how someone goes about coaching another person when they are experiencing extremes states of psychological distress, including addictions. I am not so comfortable with promoting all these studies to back that up the superiority of therapy over medications; Nathan raises some good questions. One study, however, in recent yrs concluded that it was not the form of therapy that mattered when evaluating success rates, but it was the nature of the relationship developed during the process that mattered most. I believe if the person counseled is given respect,empathy,and support from an equal plane of hierarchy, and there is an exchange of ideas and feelings where each learns from the other, then something good might happen and problems may be solved. I have always criticized the DSM labels even when people seemed to be resigned to accepting them, and I have done my best to steer people away from medications and to challenge their psyhiatrist if they had one (70 % percent of psych meds are now prescribed by regular physiscians).

    We all have a lot of work to do to defeat Biological Psychiatry as part of changing the world we live in to be more humane and just. Knowing exactly who our friends and enemies are, and uniting all who can be united is a critical part of this process.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    Thanks for sharing your particular experience. I have had many people tell me that AA attendance was sometimes a “trigger” for more addictive thoughts not less. Sometimes they would hear too many “war stories” about drinking adventures or get hung up on the concept of being “diseased” or “defective.” For some people this would feed into very negative thought patterns; negative thought patterns often lead to addictive thought patterns.

    Your approach ” I just don’t drink. That’s all.” reminds me of this source I found on the Smart Recovery website; it was called the “One Step Program.”

    In Part 1 of my blog series I do make reference to the fact that there are millions of examples of what is referred to as “spontaneous recovery”; no therapy, no drugs, and no meetings. I believe this is true for all forms of extreme states of psychological distress, including addiction problems. Those defending the “Disease Model” do not want to acknowledge this fact.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • John

    Thanks for your comments. I checked out your reference to David Smail and found him to be very interesting. I find his analysis to be very insightful and on point on many questions.

    As to your comment that not every form of short term pleasure seeking needs to be called an addiction; I agree.

    In part 1 of this series I refer to both substance use (as a form of self-medication) and other symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness” as necessary coping mechanisms that can be quite useful for a period of time, but then sometimes get stuck in the “on” position. When stuck in the “on” position they often turn into their opposite and become self-defeating and harmful to some people. When these behaviors become entrenched and difficult to stop and when the costs of these behaviors begin to grossly outweigh their benefits, then we might be at a point where the word “addiction” applies.

    Yes, antidepressants fit the definition of “addicton;” Biological Psychiatry has siezed upon and expanded the culture of addiction in this country by promoting their “disease/psychotropic drug model;” the line between legal and illegal drug pushing is completely blurred.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Maria

    I have serious doubts that this approach could be helpful in exposing and defeating Biological Psychiatry. Just as you make clear that Psych drugs end up doing far more harm than good, this testing approach may end up with the same result. A few may be saved from potential harm but more people in the long run may be harmed. I am afraid that this may just give more fuel to Biological Psychiatry’s genetic determinist theory and practice.

    Biological Psychiatry will find ways to work around the obstacles presented by these tests. There are several categories of antidepressant drugs. They will end up claiming that perhaps only one category creates a risk for the patient; if it’s the SSRI’s then they will prescribe the older trycyclics. If that doesn’t work they will end up promoting antipsychotics or some other category etc. etc.

    Maria, I appreciate your writings and your passion. I could be wrong in my perspective but I am trying explore some different angles on this subject.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • AA

    I did not call Alice a hypocrite. In previous postings I have supported Alice’s writing on this blog and also above gave her kudos for her critique of the current medical system.

    What I have questioned is her statements that pretend that she is not (in her own way) telling people what to do. If you read her blogs there is a clear theme regarding what she believes is necessary and possible to do as an activist at this time. I believe it is appropriate to challenge that in a respectful way. We all can do more and perhaps when I write this way I am also challenging myself at the same time.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Alice

    I DO support SOME of your writing (especially your exposure of our broken medical system) but I cannot support other key components of your writing.

    You say “I can only speak for myself…I can’t choose for another person.”

    These are COP OUT kind of statements and actually hide the fact that you do indeed speak for other people and are trying to influence people in a certain direction with your writing. And I choose to question the thrust of this part of your message.

    You are in a unique position with your credentials, knowledge, and experience to shake up this OPPRESSIVE system from within. It’s not just the fact that you choose to back away from this opportunity and responsibility that history (accident of birth together with your hard work) has afforded you, but you promote and defend this position with this “who am I to tell someone else what to do” approach.

    If we don’t DARE to develop and advocate for (and I know I could pull out of you specific ideas about a different way to organize a new medical system) some alternatives to the current madness, then this just assures the fact that the present system (and those promoting it) will continue its’ daily destruction of human life and spirit. Your writings DO tell people what to do without acknowledging that fact; they sometimes are telling people it’s not worth the struggle on a macro level, “just act locally”, write a blog, focus on your kids, and that ideas about “dismantling systems” are just too confrontational.

    It’s certainly your choice to have these views, but don’t pretend that your not, in your own way, telling people what to do.

    The fence you are walking on is rapidly becoming a razor blade; no side will escape the potential dangers of that blade. My sense from your writings and from the overall feistyness of the inner character that you project, is that you will soon be headed towards the barricades. This system has a way of doing that to many people who temporarily choose to stand near the side lines. I hope to see you stepping out in the future.

    Respectfully, Richard

    Report comment

  • Alice

    “I can blame no one who declines to speakup.”

    I’ll give you a chance to rethink your above comment.

    Biological Psychiatry is destroying people’s lives everyday; people are dying, brains are being destroyed, human resilience crushed with each label and brain numbing chemical cocktail. This situation demands that people speak up, especially those who are aware of some of these truths. TO NOT SPEAK UP IS TO BE COMPLICIT IN THESE CRIMES!!! After all we do not want become today’s “Good Germans.”

    Like Steve, who also writes on this site, I work in community mental health as a therapist. I speak out all the time and I look for ways to challenge this complete take over of the medical model in any way I can; I plan to do even more of this in the future. Yes, this has been risky and will become more so as Biological Psychiarty becomes more defensive with the growth of our movement. But I couldn’t live with myself if I wasn’t prepared to take risks. “THERE IS NO VICTORY WITHOUT RISK!”

    Two years ago I attended an educational presentation on “psychopharmacology” for CEUS. There were 300 clinicians attending this training. I had Whitaker’s book with me and was prepared to raise serious challenges during the question and answer period. The only trouble was that the speaker eliminated question and answers due to a time shortage. The presention repeated the whole mythical “chemical Imbalance Theory.” I could not sleep for weeks after this training because I was beating myself up for not standing tall and interrupting this speaker during his lies and distortions of the truth; lies that harm millions of people everyday. For me this will never happen again! I can’t wait for the next opportunity to strategically (with careful thought and preparation)interrupt such a presentation.

    Alice, a well organized small group of psychiatrists could wreak havoc in the APA if they dared to take the risks; DOESN’T HISTORY DEMAND THIS OF US!. Dropping out and retreating to our families is certainly seductive given the difficulty of challenging the status quo, but it is not the road forward in this movement. The leaders of Biological Psychiatry want nothing more than for disenters to drop out or quit; that allows them the freedom to continue there crimes.

    LET’S ALL BECOME BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY’S WORST NIGHTMARE!!!

    A SINGLE SPARK CAN START A PRAIRIE FIRE!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Layla

    I hope you are still reading even if you are not writing, and I hope you plan to participate on this site in the future. Your blogging, together with the multiple responses over the past several days, was some of the most interesting and spirited discussion to take place on MIA in some time.

    It is interesting to note that it was over two thirds into the dialogue before there was any real mention of any significant details from your own narrative. It finally came out that you had experienced trauma in your life and some issues of addiction. This was no surprise to me or probably to many other participants on this website. The symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness” do not come from out of thin air and most certainly are not from “bad genes” or other related theories of “original sin.”

    Biological Psychiatry has no interest in a person’s narrative; they only listen to it in order to cherry pick a set of psychological symptoms so they can tag some one with a diagnosis of a brain “disease” or “disorder” from their DSM bible and then throw mind numbing medications at it. For those of us genuinely trying to help people in distress, the narrative is everything and the so-called symptoms are just normal responses to abnormal events. Helping people connect up their symptoms of distress with the actual events in their life that gave rise to them can be a critical part of some one understanding and gaining control over those symptoms.

    Layla,in my blog, “Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease model” (go to the “Writers” section and click on Richard Lewis) I discuss how addictive behaviors and the symptoms that get labeled as “mental illness” are usually formerly useful coping mechanisms that get stuck in the “on” position and then often become harmful and self-defeating to the individual experiencing them. I hope you get a chance to read this and I would appreciate your feedback on its content.

    As to the question, why do I say I am anti-Biological Psychiatry as opposed to anti-psychiatry? Is this just more “us against them” type polarizing polemics or part of an actual winning strategy to “unite all who can be united” in transforming our reality in the mental health field?

    Layla, because I am anti-Biological Psychiarty does not mean I don’t believe biology or brain chemistry is involved in thoughts, feelings and behavior. It’s just that their biological and/or genetic determinist and reductionist theories are dead wrong. Biological Psychiatry is defined as the wedding of genetic theories of “mental illness” with Big Pharma, the major training institutions for modern psychiatry, and the current leadership of the American Psychiatric Association. This is a destructive and historically reactionary institution. It cannot be and should not be reformed. It belongs in the same museum with slavery, Nazism, racism, sexism, homophobia etc. etc.

    History(I believe it was Dr. Peter Breggin who actually coined this label) came up with the name “Biological Psychiatry” to name the “enemy” and delineate this toxic trend from mainstream psychiatry (which was not without its own problems). I believe Breggin’s intention was to link this trend with the historically related trend of biological determinism and modern eugenics. Not all the terms defining historical trends are literally accurate when you examine the individual words. For example, National Socialism (or Nazism) besmirches the actual meaning of “socialism. The Socio-biologists, were an earlier version ( E.O. Wilson and Conrad Lorenz’s “Naked Ape” in the 60’s) of todays biological determinists. There is nothing inherently wrong with the prefix “socio” or the word “biologist.” It’s just that history once again came up with this particular name.

    Once again, I say we do not know what the institution of psychiatry will look like in a post revoltionary society; it must and will be radically different. We need to advocate for Biological Psychiatry to be completely defeated and the entire mental health system to be totally dismantled. Let’s try to unite progressive psychiatrists around these demands. I believe a current minority of psychiatrists (with the urging and support of the survivor/activist wing of our movement) can be won to this type of program and could be supported in their efforts to wreak havoc in the APA and other organizations to target psychiatric abuses and isolate the reactionary leaders of Biological Psychiatry.

    It is wrong to tell Dr. Sandra Steingard and Dr Dan Fisher that they have no right to exist and must abandon their profession. Progressive doctors (even if it is only a small minority at this time) are valuable allies in the struggle to overturn Biological Psychiatry and help implement and develop humane forms of detox protocols and other progressive types of aid for people in extreme states of psychological distress. THIS IS NOT COMPROMISING OUR PRINCIPLES OR SOMEHOW GIVING IN TO THE ENEMY; THIS IS A WINNING STRATEGY!!!

    We have watched people like Dr.Sandra Steingard grow through her participation on this website and we can learn from her too. Layla, was, at times, treated harshly in a few responses to her dialogue in this thread. She is exactly the type of person we need to win over to build this movement. She has the qualities to become a major creative agent of change. We must trust the power of our ideas and passion and not get lazy and resort to put downs and sarcasm to make our points. After all it was Laura herself who said that Layla sounded just like her two years ago; is this how we should have reacted to Laura in her earlier state of “awakening?”

    Layla, I look forward to your participation and growth in this community.

    Down with Biological Psychiatry! A Better world is Possible!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Layla

    I am a therapist (LMHC and addiction specialist) who has worked in community mental health for 20 years (I also blog on MIA), and I have witnessed the complete complete take over of Biological Psychiatry’s Disease/Psych Med Model. This model does enormous damage to people and undermines the dedicated and difficult work of many hard working professionals in the field.

    I have great admiration and support for Laura Delano’s contributions to MIA. Since Biological Psychiatry maintains a complete dictatorship over the mental health field I have no problem with her unflinching condemnations of psychiatry and her labeling psychiatry as a cult. I prefer to label myself as anti-Biological Psychiatry as opposed to anti-psychiatry. If all psychiatric prescriptions were halted today there would be at least 20 years of work necessary to help develop and research safe withdrawal programs from all the toxic medications as well as the need to develop other positive support programs to help people who are experiencing extreme states of psychological distress. Progressive doctors could play an important role in this period of reformation.

    We cannot say at this time what the field of psychiatry will look like in a post revolutionary world. But there is no question that modern psychiatry and the entire mental health field needs to be completely dismantled and replaced with something more just and humane. We cannot underestimate how much the oppressive theory and practice and elitism of Biological Psychiatry has infiltrated the minds of every one working in the mental health field; we truly need a real “brain washing.”

    Layla, I admire your willingness to participate in this very spirited dialogue. You have raise good questions and promoted a healthy debate. Many of the writers here at MIA have done a great job in critically challenging your attempts to hold onto the faulty science of Biological Psychiatry’s “genetic theories of original sin.” It sounds to me like your greatest support in the mental health field has come from those professionals who have not been totally indoctrinated by Biological Psychiatry and have allowed you to find your own path to transformation. Your belief and practice of mindfulness mediation sounds like a tremendous resource for you; something I wish some of the people I work with would take up with your level of commitment. I look forward to watching you struggle and grow in this community.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Marilyn

    Yes it is true that the family therapy approaches you describe can help some cases where a child is acting out violently, but overall this is a far too narrow analysis of this problem. To leave it at this level will actually misdirect people’s attention away from the larger societal problems that give rise to family dysfunction and to individual and group acts of violence.

    Using your term about being in a “one down” position let’s look at the class structure in modern American society. The one percent of corporate ownership together with government and military leaders who manage and provide order for their system, have us all in a continuous “one down” position. And some sections of our society suffer more than others being in this position. The feelings of insecurity related to being poor or marginalized (classism,racism,sexism,homophobia etc.) in our society create enormous amounts of emotional pain and daily experiences of various forms of trauma. This is the environment in which the current status and structure of the “nuclear family” resides. We need to start here when examining the origins of violence in our society.

    Don’t forget it was not that long ago that the American government conducted one of the world’s largest “drive by shootings” when it waged an all out assault on the country of Irag. On a world scale Iraq, as a Third World country, is in a “one down” position to the Godfather of the First World. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people died through the bombings and the destruction of that country’s infrastructure. Preceding the actual invasion there were several years of a blockade that did enormous damage to Iraq’s medical system and food supplies. Tens of thousands (probably hundreds of thousands is more accurate) of children died because of these policies and attacks.

    It is the height of hypocracy for Obama and the U.S. government to pretend that they care about children when these military incursions are accepted as a normal part of American foreign policy. What moral lessons are these so-called leaders of the “free world” teaching our parents and youth growing up in this country.

    The violent video games that Adam lanza was alegedly playing all day long are considered valuable training methods for the young air force cadets being trained to operate the drones airplanes that bomb Afghani villages in their pursuit of the “enemy.” Mistakes are all too frequent in these attacks and we often here about innocent children dying as a result of these drone bombings.

    Biological Psychiatry plays a valuable role preserving the current order of things by focusing people’s attention on “bad genes” and so-called “brain diseases.” This steers people’s attention away from all the institutional injustices that create the conditions for extreme states of psychological distress.

    If we are going to talk about the value of “family systems therapy” we must put it in this context, otherwise we end up narrowing people’s sights when it comes to identifying both the problem and solution to our problems.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Vivek

    Thanks for writing such a thought provoking post on the PTSD diagnosis. It has helped me grasp even more deeply how Biological Psychiatry has turned reality on its head. Rather than view PTSD as the only diagnosis that makes any sense due to its connection to environmental stressors, it is now clearer to me how this is only used to further promote their flawed paradigm.

    All forms of extreme states of psychological distress (that which gets mislabeled as “mental illness”) involve some type of traumatic relationship or involvement with one’s environment. The proponents of Biological Psychiatry will listen to someone’s narrative only to pull out a set of symptoms to make a diagnosis of their perceived “disease process.” The true narrative or real life experiences of that person means nothing to them. How sick and delusional is this model of treatment that gets passed off as real science?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonah

    Why does an excessively greedy person have to be “possessed” with the spirit of greed? We live in a capitalist society where greed is taught and encouraged throughout our culture; this is a much better explanation than ascribing this quality to some supernatural force which cannot be proven to exist.

    I stand by my previous comments on this subject.Superstition throughout history has caused great harm to people. To view people in an extreme state of psychological distress (with a “schizophenic” label) as possessed by the Devil or some other demon is just as bad as the brain disease theories of Biological Psychiatry. Both label and marginalize people and subject them to enormous amounts of prejudice along with various oppressive forms of treatment (drugging and forced incarceration). Both obscure and misdirect people’s attention away from the various forms of abuse, trauma, and stress in our society that creates conditions for these extreme states of psychological distress.

    This same type of superstition has historically caused people with epilepsy and other neurological disorders to be treated as outcasts and in some cases killed. And what about the women burned at the stake in Salem Mass for being “witches” and possessed by demonic forces.

    Jonah, your postings on MIA I usually agree with; on this topic you are way off the mark. If you are accusing me of “scientism” then I plead quilty. For me there is no such thing as being too scientific. Science is the search for the truth using the scientific method. We need to do more of this not less and it needs to be developed and presented in an exciting and living way. I am opposed to the empiricism and reductionism that are the hallmarks of Biological Psychiatry’s phony attempts at real science. Is there phenomona in this world we do not yet understand? Yes, of course, but we can search for the answers without resorting to superstition.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jay

    Welcome to MIA. I took a quick look at your list of publications and perused a few of your published papers. You have done some great research and writing that will help us all dig the grave for Biological Psychiatry.

    Your participation in this website will be extremely valuable and I can remember a few heated discussions this past year where your input was very much needed to counter some currents of genetic determinism. I think I can speak for some fellow participants at MIA and say we look forward to your future posts.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Laura, Faith, and Seth

    The combination of your three contributions in this particular blog thread have raised the level of this discussion to new heights.

    Laura once again in her profound writing style has used her own experience to indict Biological Psychiatry and their entire system of so-called mental health treatment in this country. She has raised a powerful defense of the millions of young “Michaels” in this country being preyed upon by the medical model of treatment.

    Faith, your overall analysis and especially your statement “Instead of trying to change kids, why don’t we try to change the world?” literally jumped off my computer monitor. You are so right – there is nothing wrong with having a “political agenda” if that agenda will in fact help make the world into a better place. It reminds me of those on the “right” that criticize “political correctness.” What the hell is wrong with being “correct!” There are truths in this world that can be discovered and understood and then applied to transform our reality in a more humane direction. Racism, sexism, and the oppression of those labeled “mentally ill”, together with all the language that supports these type of problems, are both harmful and wrong and it is correct to oppose them. We all have much work to do to find the correct political agenda to advance our struggle.

    Seth, your penetrating and critical analysis of that woman’s essay on her son, Michael, brought back all my past exposure to family systems work and reminded me how much Biological Psychiatry has buried this approach to understanding what’s really going on in the family dynamic and how to work towards helping people find their own family solutions. On a broader societal scale this system, in response to this tragedy, will continue to scapegoat Adam Lanza, his parents, and other so-called caregivers as having failed us. They will only target the symptoms of much larger problems and direct our attention away from a truly diseased and sick way of treating those people in our society who are experiencing extreme states of psychological distress. And they will divert our attention away from all the oppressive institutions in our society that create enormous stressors on daily basis for millions of people.

    It is only by speaking out with such powerful words and ideas (that you three have so eloquately done) that we can counter the backward summations and proposals likely to come forward in the coming months. Great job; let’s find a way to spread these words far and wide.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    You said above “I do give the authors credit for not trying to spin the data.”

    Think about the implications of this statement. Think about how low our expectations of truth and honesty has fallen when it comes to Biological Psychiatry. These are suppose to be scientists and doctors who have promised to “do no harm” and be dedicated to upholding the truth no matter what the data tells us. Human lives as well as the health of their brains are on the line here.

    Can you image if these results came out about a heart medication or a diabetes medication, do you think the final sentence of a study would have been that doctors need to exercise “caution” in their prescribing?

    In this case atypical anti-psychotic medications are so intimately bound up in the “raison d’etre” for these doctors that they can’t put ethics and the well being of their patients over their investment in Biological Psychiatry as a model of treatment.

    Sandra, this is exactly why some of us on MIA are not “anti-psychiatry” but “anti-Biological Psychiatry” and you should be too. I appreciate your participation here and I hope you play a role in challenging this model of treatment within your field; it needs to be defeated and dismantled.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Alice

    Thanks for answering my questions above. Your answer to Stephen is another devastating critique of our current medical system; it screams out that this system is truly broken beyond repair. You better be careful because you are sounding more and more like a radical who just might end up next to some of us at the barricades. You could play a very valuable role in educating people about what really goes on in the belly of the beast, as well as advocating for drastic changes to this system. I look forward to learning more from you and witnessing your growth in our movement.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Alice

    I have found your posts to be very educational and interesting critiques of modern medicine and psychiatry. I have also admired and appreciated your courage and willingness to openly process very personal thoughts about your career crises as well as dialogue with psychiatric survivors about your previous role as a psychiatrist working in locked units in hospitals prescribing medications. Some of these were very tough discussions and you hung in there with great honesty and humility.

    In your current journey I would like to take your pulse on a few questions regarding the state of the psychiatric profession and the movement for the total transformation of mental health care? This would help me and perhaps others to understand what role doctors can play in this movement.

    Do you now consider yourself anti-Biological Psychiatry (as opposed to anti-psychiatry)?

    Would you be in favor of totally dismantling modern psychiatry and and the current mental health system and replacing it with something more humane and progressive?

    Have you thought about joining with a minority of other doctors who share your alienation and criticisms of the current system in order to build organization and struggle that might eventually lead to the overthrow of the current paradigm of treatment?

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Let’s get real here. Steve and Alix are absolutely correct to challenge the fanatasy that the “glass is half full” just because one report comes out questioning the current practices of treating schizophrenia.

    There are two types of denial. One is, “we don’t have a problem,” and the other is “our problem is not that big.” Let’s be reminded that Biological Psychiatry is comprised of major established institutions of power backed by major corporations seeking the highest rates of profit by any means necessary. They have successfully brain washed millions of people to believe in their paradigm of treatment. They are not going to pack it in because of a few criticisms and contrary reports.

    Right now we are seeing some main stream followers of Biological Psychiatry questioning some of the more obvious extreme examples of their abuses as they become more exposed. They are getting nervous that this is giving their institution a bad reputation and may threatenen their power. Yes we should support defectors and those willing to question the current paradigm from within, but let’s not get carried away or misunderstand the enormous amount of work and struggle ahead of us.

    Back in 2005 the president of the APA made the following statements in a speech at their annual convention:

    “There is widespread concern of the over medication of mental disorders and over use of medications. Financial incentives and managed care have contributed to the notion of a “quick fix” by taking a pill and reducing the emphasis on psychotherapy and psychosocial treatments. As we address these Big Pharma issues, we must examine the fact that as a profession, we have allowed the bio-psycho-social model to become the bio-bio-bio model. In a time of economic contraint, a “pill and an appointment” has dominated treatment….Drug company representatives bearing gifts are frequent visitors to psychiatrists’ offices and consulting rooms. We should have the wisdom and the distance to call these gifts what they are “kickbacks and bribes”.”

    These sound like radical comments, but what has changed in the APA or in the treatment of people labelled “mentally ill.” We are building the foundation of a very important movement. I am very encouraged by recent struggles that are developing among activists, but we need very sober assessments when we chart our road forward.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ivana

    I have nothing but the highest regard for Robert Whitaker. His writings and world wide speaking engagements along with his involvement in creating this website has made a tremendous contribution to creating the groundwork for making revolutionary changes in mental health treatment in this country and throughout the world. I have heard him speak and felt his passion and connection to the many victims of Biological Psychiatry. I have also had a brief conversation with him at one conference and exchanged a few complimentary e-mails expressing great enthuisiasm for his work. I definitely view him as a leading figure on our side of the barricades.

    If Robert Whitaker is in fact involved with Dr. Healy in creating some other websites regarding medication side effects etc. then I hope he takes advantage of this relationship to challenge and convince Dr. Healy of the importance of participating in active dialogue at MIA.

    I stand by my above position that MIA bloggers should be required to engaged in active dialogue with those questioning their positions and beliefs. We at MIA must and need to be an interactive website if we are truly going to have a positive impact on changing the world. Nobody should be above criticism or avoid responding to their critics.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Laura

    Another great post. It is liberating to read the personal insights of someone so willing to openly process such a compelling and intimate history of their odessey through the modern mental health system.

    The powerful sway of Biological Psychiatry is no different than the intoxicating influence of religious cults in attracting new members. Each is usually engaging a person at a most vulnerable and impressionable time in their life, and each promises potential salvation from a troubled life. People are almost always hurt, angry, fearful, and with no confidence in their grasp of reality at that moment. In these situations the concept of “free will” is hopelessly compromised; the word “voluntary” has no meaning in this context.

    Laura, your story and your narrative growth right before our eyes is truly inspiring.

    In struggle, Richard

    Report comment

  • Names, Jeffrey C, and Jonah,

    You bring up a very interesting question and something I have thought about for some time.

    On the MIA blog should there not be a policy that all bloggers, as a condition of their participation, be required to respond to those wishing to question or interrogate their positions?

    If someone is given this type of public forum to promote their views and opinions should they not have the courage and respect to take the time to respond to people who might question their beliefs?

    If we are going to change the world and, in particular, change the entire mental health paradym in this country, we all to need to be interrogating ourselves, as well as others, who might be suggesting they know part of the way forward in our movement. How else can we really learn and develop the necessary unity required to make revolutionary changes?

    That being said I must say I have learned some things from Dr. Healey’s blog contributions. But it is frustrating to know that neither I or anyone else can actually question his beliefs and expect an answer.

    I would hate to think that certain bloggers could use the MIA blog to promote themselves and their careers and not be using this site as a forum for learning, participating, and changing the world into a better place.

    So to the blog moderators I pose this question: What about changing or modifying blogging requirements to include being available to respond to blog readers who raise questions or criticisms about blog contributions? I am not suggesting some one must respond to every single posting, but that they must make a good faith effort to reply to essential questions or comments made.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • MJK

    Your post about the beliefs and pseudo research of the so-called Dr Van Dusen gives new meaning to Ashley Montagu’s phrase “genetic theories of original sin.” He used this term to mock the theories of the sociobiologists (the forerunners of todays’ Biological Psychiatrists) who attributed human behavior to the primal instincts of the animal kingdom. They basically argued that human beings were not capable of rising above their so-called “animal nature” of violence, war, and the individual self interests of greed. So therefore we should all forget about changing the world and accept a world of war, imperialism, and the self interest and “dog eat dog” competition of modern capitalism.

    The theories of Dr. Van Dusen are just the flip side of the same coin stamped with the theories of Biological Psychiatry. When their bogus science used to promote genetic theories of “mental illness” don’t pan out it is just a short walk to ascribing the symptoms of what gets labelled as “schizophrenia” to demonic forces. Both end up demeaning those identified this way as either genetically defective or possessed by the Devil. This is not far from the racist terminology used to describe Black People in this country not so long ago.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Anonymous

    Thanks for reading my blog. I always look forward to your take on issues and respect your unrelenting criticisms of Biological Psychiatry.

    I think you were on a temporary break when Part 1 of my blog was up on MIA. I hope you take the time to go back and read it; I would be very interested in your comments if you choose to respond.

    “Bad habits are a moral problem”

    Accepted morality is determine by the ruling classes and their instutions of power. Clearly today their morality stands in opposition to what represents the ideas and actions that would truely move all of humanity forward.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Freedomart

    Thanks for reading and responding to my blog. Yes, you are right to say that biological things happen in the body when someone becomes addicted and also when they recover, but this does not mean it is disease. The same is true of extreme states of psychological distress; brain chemistry may be temporarily altered but is also not a disease.
    And anyone can develop both problems if subjected to certain enviromental conditions for a long enough period of time.

    As to the First Step, sometimes with some men a little ego deflation can be helpful in beginning an effort to give up their addiction, but overall I stand by what I said about the negative aspects of accepting “powerlessness” in today’s world.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    I am forced to respond to your post under my own (which is actually above your posting) because for some reason there is no “Reply” moniker to work with under your post.

    I have always liked Stanton Peele and I have read and been positively influenced by his publications in the past.

    I have started reading some of the research material for the NIAAA study that you have cited. I am unable at this time to do more of this reading and will withhold judgement until I can devote some serious time.

    I will say that I believe addiction is really a particular relationship that someone forms with a certain substance or behavior. It is unique to each person and has its own special meaning related to their history of both positive and negative life experiences. We can measure statistics in terms of number of drinks and frequency of use ect., but these statistics do not tell us much about this particular relationship. Statistics are very important but so is what’s at the heart each person’s narrative. What are people running from and how is their substance use or behavior filling an empty void in that person’s life? Coming to terms with these questions may help us determine the actual degree of addiction and the difficulty of recovery and possible re-addiction at some future time if a person starts to drink again.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Johanna

    Thanks for your feedback on this issue. I tend to agree with your perspective on the difficulty of assessing these statistics. There may be a small percentage of serious alcoholics who at some point in their sobriety return to drinking without serious repercussions, but my experience tells me that those individuals would be the rare exceptions. And we know that the risks for such an experiment can be very high.

    The other problem is that when the people who return to drinking are interviewed or become part of a survey they may not be having major problems at that particular time or be willing to admit they are. In other words “the jury may still be out” and a true verdict on their success or failure may not be rendered for months or even years. Some people who attempt a return to drinking fight very hard for a period of time to keep their drinking under control; they desperately want to hold on to their alcohol and prove to themselves that they can drink safely. For example,in counseling I see one person who otherwise functions very well (job and family etc.) and returned to drinking after 10 years of sobriety. It actually took a few years for her drinking to once again become a problem; so much so that she decided to go on antabuse inorder to get herself started on a significant period of abstinence.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Vanessa

    I must confess that I knew nothing about Davis Foster Wallace until you brought him up in this discussion. I began to read about him on line and listened to some testimonials from some people who were powerfully influenced by his writings. I don’t know if you ever met him, but I have noticed that people in their grief spoke about him as if he were a dear friend even though they never spoke with the man. He comes across as a very compassionate and loving person as well as a very skilled writer. You obviously view part of his loss through a prism of knowledge related to the mind crushing effects of Biological Psychiatry. It is interesting to note that both Ernest Hemingway and Sylvia Plath also committed suicide following ECT treatment. There is the famous quote from Hemingway in a letter to his friend, Hotch, shortly before he shot himself:

    “Well what is the sense of ruining my head and erasing my memory, which is my capital, and putting me out of business. It was a brilliant cure but we lost the patient. It’s a bum turn, Hotch, terrible.” Ernest Hemingway (1967)

    A person I have been counseling recently lost his wife to suicide shortly after she received ECT. We know that ECT damages memory (among other things). People sometimes initially feel better because they have temporarily forgotten why they are depressed. Their unresolved issues with life soon return full force and now what’s left to confront these existential dilemmas? It seems to me that a person’s resilience is also part of their memory; destroy or damage someone’s resilience and perhaps you’ve not only weakened their coping mechanisms but their reason to exist.

    Vanessa, obviously you have taken (and still take) great meaning and a sense of human connection from AA, I know many people who do; this cannot be refuted. Unfortunately the experience is not universal and hopefully we can find other useful alternatives for those that have been left out of a postive recovery experience. And hopefully the movement that we are building can provide a similar sense of community combined with a liberating ideology and program; I look forward to building that with you.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Hi Vanessa,

    I have found your blog entries to to passionate, well written, and educational.

    You are so right about the fine line (or no line) between legal and illegal drug pushing. Every psychiatrist I have spoken to in community mental health (especially when they first arrive) have said to me that they know Benzos are dangerous and plan to only rarely prescribe them; their words are hollow. Benzos prescriptions are enormously high and growing; many people coming to community mental health already have been prescribed them by their primary care doctors who get nervous when their patients get worse and inevitably ask for higher doses. Outside of a hospital setting I believe these are the most dangerous drugs in the world and do far more harm than good.

    “I disagree with your analysis of AA as religious. AA promotes a spiritual way of life. One in which people get to discover and engage with what’s meaningful to them in the place of that which felt empty . It doesn’t force anyone to subscribe to a particular belief.”

    Vanessa, For me “spiritual” has two meanings. One is the desire and need for human connection with some type of meaning beyond the self, as you point out. The other meaning of “spiritual” is clearly religious, that is, worshiping a god or higher power that can only be recognized by faith. AA promotes both meanings in its literature and practice. Yes, it does not outright force people into these beliefs, but the strong influence of group morms and group conformity is very powerful. I have witnessed both its positive and negative effects on people struggling with addiction problems at a very vulnerable time in their life.

    Your quote from David Foster Wallace is very interesting but I cannot say I agree with the thrust of his essential message.It clearly has a theme of cynicism and accommodation. It reminds me of the debate that took place around the Bob Dylan song “Your Gonna Have To Serve Somebody.”

    “Well it may be the devil or it may be the lord
    But we’re gonna have to serve somebody”

    Many people from the 60’s movements eventually became burnt out and demoralized when the crest of the wave of those powerful movements began to subside along with many of the leaders being coopted into community development and urban planning endeavors attempting to reform the system. Some people turned back to religion or accepted defeat when they no longer believed it was really possible to radically transform the material world around them.

    When Wallace says: “everything else you worship will eat you alive” Maybe the answer is simply to not worship( as a deity or something above us) anything, in the sense that we should not place any person or thing above reproach. I say, no we don’t “have to serve somebody.” We should always retain our critical thinking skills and courage to question all authority. In other words we should serve nothing but the truth and that which will truly move all of humanity forward. I don’t think that means that we should have no trust in leaders; but genuine leaders should welcome and encourage their ideas to be questioned and interrogated as well as inspiring every one to become a leader themselves.

    Biological Psychiatry must be defeated; it will not just wither away. We have much work to do and I look forward to uniting with you in this struggle.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    I am forced to respond to you down here because there was no “reply” at the end of your last post.

    I plan to do more investigation on the statistics you are presenting. But I will say that in one of the early Rational Recovery groups I attended there was a young Harvard student there who made the following statement on this subject: “It might be possible for me to learn how to be a social drinker but I don’t think it is worth the risk.”

    I would like to hear from some other people in this particular discussion.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Johanna

    Thanks for responding to my probing questions. Your feedback and your clarification of meaning is helpful to me and to the overall discussion.

    Having watched the take over of the medical model in community mental health over the past 19 years I have experienced how this has negatively influenced the way clients are both viewed and treated by the doctors(no surprise there since this is how they are trained) and more disappointedly by counselors. So often a person is only discussed as a set of symptoms; the narrative(the story of who the person is and how they got there) is completely lost. I purchased and circulated 5 copies of “Anatomy of an Epidemic” in my clinic to both a few doctors and several therapists; only a few really took the time to read it. I believe there is an undercurrent of alienation and dissent among people working in the field but we all have much work to do to build on this as part of our movement.

    By the way I wish you would look at some of the above discussion going between myself and Brett and participate with your experience and perspective; I think it is a very important discussion with potentially serious ramifications.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Johanna

    I appreciate you providing the information about the out of the mainstream AA groups. It’s good to know that there is struggle going on in Twelve Step organizations that might lead to better and more inclusive options for people.

    “Nobody is the Leader, the Counselor, the Therapist or the Identified Normal Person. It has enabled me to learn lessons I never could have absorbed from the aforementioned superior beings.”

    I am a bit troubled by the above commnet about “superior beings.” Do you believe that all counselors or therapists act “superior” or believe themselves to be so? Did you find my blog helpful? Did you think it was presented in a way that was condescending? I would appreciate the feedback from someone who has battled addiction. Thanks in advance.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    “Given that the majority of people who overcome alcohol dependence do so on their own and continue to drink without problem…”

    I am not sure this statement is accurate. We need to carefully look at the sample of people with alcohol problems from which this conclusion was drawn. Yes, there is much evidence that college age students who abuse alcohol for 4 or 5 years then graduate and get a job and a family (and other responsibilities) frequently “outgrow” their pattern of dysfunctional alcohol use. But what about people who start at young age and continue their abuse of multiple substances for 10 or 15 years; can they learn to moderate their drinking? Most of these people have tried to moderate their drinking hundreds of times and failed miserably at it. That is why they end up searching for a way to successfully achieve abstinence as their goal.

    Groups such as Moderation Management have not been that effective in teaching people how to safely drink alcohol. People who are safe/social drinkers seem to automatically have built in limits to their pattern of drinking. If someone suddenly becomes focused on “moderation,” this may indicate that some type of line has already been crossed where the alcohol controls “them” more than they can control “it.” They may start out with the intentions to limit their use, but once they consume a certain amount of alcohol(which affects the cerebral cortex, the area of the brain where judgement is made) there good intentions seem to go out the window. This happens not because alcohol is some “evil substance” that has a mind of its own, but perhaps more because of well established thought patterns associated with impulsivity,compulsivity, and negativity; that is acting on impulse without thinking first, feeling compelled to do something even though you know better, and negativity based on the mistakes associated with their history of drinking and the actual depressive effects of alcohol on the central nervous system.

    All of this is important because we do not want to mislead people who have been abstinent for a long period of time into believing that they have a good chance of now becoming a “social drinker” based on misleading statistics. This could have disastrous consequences for some people who have achieved a precious state of stability in their life. People with good sobriety already have alot of experience talking back to their “addiction voice” which every so often starts “romanticizing” having a drink. Just a hint of what is to come in Part 3 of this blog.

    Brett, you are correct that in some cases we need to focus more on “Harm Reduction” with some people who do not want to quit drinking drinking and/or seem to be unable to do it for any length of time.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • David

    Thanks for such an in depth analysis relating attachment and loss issues to addiction.

    Your description of the evolutionary basis for depression and the human reaction to loss powerfully refutes the Biological Psychiatry model of trying to quickly remove the symptoms of depression. Their use of medication totally short circuits the role of depression as a valuable learning process. Of course it is not a good thing to remain stuck in state of depression or to remain stuck in a pattern of using certain substances as a coping mechanism.

    David, good to hear from you again as always.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Brett

    Thanks for participating in this discussion and providing some interesting comments and source material.

    My anecdotal experience over 20 years of counseling people with addiction problems is that very few people can return to safe/social use of alcohol after a period of addiction. Therefore total abstinence remains the safest choice. I believe the longer someone abuses alcohol the more difficult it becomes to turn the clock back to a pre-addiction pattern of use. Obviously my sample of people is limited and skewed towards those who feel the need to seek out counseling.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Emily

    “AA helps people. It works better than anything else out there. I don’t intend to read your part 3. that suggests you have a better plan for addiction recovery than AA. I don’t believe you do.”

    My blog states that AA helps some people. The evidence comparing different treatment models does NOT show that AA “works better than anything else out there.” Studies I have read show that ALL treatment models, including AA, do not have very high success rates; no one treatment model stands out as more successful than another.

    My blog did not say I have a better treatment model for addiction. My intentions are to present alternative models that have developed along side of, and in some cases, in opposition to the Twelve Step model. Since you don’t plan on reading it you’ll never know if they seem more useful to you or your friends.

    Since thousands keep dying every year from addiction deaths it might make sense for all of us to question the so-called gold standard of treatment that seems to be totally above criticism to some people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Bruce

    Another great post. Taking your last two posts together on the subjects of social control and anti-authoritians, especially young people, I would make the following observation:

    Many of the categories of today’s young people most susceptable to being instituionalized and/or drugged up on psych meds (alienated/traumatized/ counter culture/ deliquent/rebellious) are exactly the types of youth who became the core of activists and leaders of the historically powerful movements of the 1960’s. We must ask this vitally important question – Due to the damage done by the drugging of today’s youth are we in danger of losing part of the next generation of activists and potential creative agents of change? A very scary thought and just one more reason to redouble our efforts to defeat Biological Psychiatry.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • I prefer to label myself as militantly anti-Biological Psychiatry. Biological Psychiatry represents the wedding of those psychiatrists who promote genetic and biologically based theories of so-called “mental illness” with the pharmaceutical corporations and the major medical instituions of higher(actually lower)learning who train them.

    I believe there is a very small minority of progressive to radical psychiatrists who can be united with and become important allies in our struggle to totally dismantle modern psychiatry’s oppressive bio-medical model. This group can play a vital role inside the belly of the beast by disrupting “business as usual” and helping to plant our pole of militant opposition, including giving a voice to our most powerful and articulate survivors of their crimes.

    If all NEW prescriptions for psychiatric drugs were completely stopped today, there would still be a valuable role for “properly” trained doctors, over the next few decades, to help the current victims of this medication holocost to safely taper off or reduce their dependence on these toxic substances. A major scientific effort could be launched to study tapering protocols and find the ways to help strengthen people’s coping mechanisms and overall resilience. In the absence of psych med prescriptions perhaps more emphasis could also be placed on prescribing appropriate placebos.

    As to whether or not our current concept of psychiatry will still exist or be something completely different at the conclusion of this revolution, I don’t think we can answer that now. Hopefully those psychiatrists willing to play a role in this coming battle have the courage and moral fortitude to risk their careers to do what is historically just and correct.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonathan

    Let’s look beneath the surface and attempt to examine the actual content and purpose of Dr. Friedman’s artice in the New York Times.

    He appears to be only criticizing some of the extremes of the psychiatric profession. His article has an underlying defense of disease labels and the medication paradym of treatment. Now that the science that is suppose to validate their profession and practice is crumbling around them, and there is more publicity and evidence about the enormous amount of harm they are causing millions of people with all their medications, some psychiatrists (like Friedman) are scrambling to protect and defend their profession from a potential movement that aims to dismantle modern psychiatry.

    Steve(above)was absolutely correct to raise the question about the use of the phrase “safe and effective.” This phrase was used in a totally uncritical way by Dr. Friedman and repeated by you in your blog contribution.

    Most people writing on the MIA blog would clearly say that atypical antipsychotics are causing far more harm than good. Jonathan, is that your view based on your examination of the current science available? If you believe that to be true, then how can you uncritically repeat the phrase “safe and effective?” This makes no sense. And it makes no difference if the FDA chooses to use these words; since when do we suddenly grant them such respect and authority.

    Correct use of language is very important for us to carefully examine in our movement. This problem with “safe and effective” made an otherwise good article tough to swallow at the end.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Ted

    Great post. Having lived through and participated in the uprisings in the 1960’s I believe you are absolutely correct to say that merely creating alternative treatment models will not build a winning strategy to defeat Biological Psychiatry. If we do not hit back against backward and reactionary institutions, and the theories that justify their existence, they will continue to batter us.

    I will repeat an idea about strategy and tactics that I brought up in another recent posting. The DSM 5 is scheduled for publication in May of 2011. I believe over the next year this should become one major target of our struggle. During this year there are sure to be dozens of trainings throughout the country promoting this document and all it changes. I recently attended a training at a community mental health clinic that was a web cast around the country focused on the proposed changes in the DSM 5. This broadcast took place in Rhode Island and the psychiatrist leading the talk, believe it or not, took unlimited questions from the audience. This event very easily could have been disrupted and/or transformed through confrontation into a very educational experience for those people watching. Thousands of people might have been reached by this one protest.

    The DSM is THE BIBLE of the pseudo religion of psychiatry. It concentrates everything that’s wrong with so-called diagnosis and treatment in this country. The APA will certainly make a major effort to promote and defend this document in the coming period; WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LET THIS GO SMOOTHLY FOR THEM! Their entire existence depends on the DSM and they stand to make millions of dollars selling these books for 130 dollars a piece.

    Every person working in the mental health field is forced to use this book to meet the standards of documentation. There is aready a primitive undercurrent of discontent over the content and use of the DSM. We need to exploit the beginning seeds of demoralization and discontent that clearly exists because of Biological Psychiatry’s complete take over with their medical model of treatment.

    Most importantly, millions of people who have had a diagnosis and medications forced on them, have a vague notion of this so-called diagnostic manual which has given them a life long label. Through major demonstrations against the DSM 5 we need to firmly plant another pole of understanding about the true nature of extreme states of emotional distress as opposed to the brain diseases they have been told they have.

    At the same time that we confront the DSM 5 and the trainings promoting it, we could also create an opposing series of trainings around the country that is comprised of some of our best speakers presenting real science and real life stories from survivors.

    We cannot allow the grand presentation of the new testament of their new Bible to go unchallenged. DSM 5, JUST A BUNCH OF JIVE!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    If the medical model was removed completely from all mental health treatment and not a single new prescription was written from your clinic or other clinics in the city where you work, there would easily be a role for psychiatrists and nurse practitioners for at least the next 20 yrs trying to help those people already on meds to learn how to live without them or with a major reduction in useage. There needs to be a major scientific investment in finding the safest and best ways for people to live without the harmful effects of these drugs.

    I know there is a major shortage of psychiatrists available for community mental health. Many people at MIA are probably rejoicing at this fact. However all this means is that the current psychiatrist have caseloads that measure in the many hundreds; yes you heard (read) that correctly; I’m talking 4 to 5 to 6 hundred clients at one time when a psychiatrist leaves an agency and drops those clients on the doctors that remain. This is totally insane when you think about issues of quality care. Even those doctors with the best outlooks and intentions cannot possibly handle this mess. This is how dangerously far the machinery behind Biological Psychiatry has taken us.

    There are measures that mental health clinics could begin to take immediately that could help with this situation:

    1) educate all staff about the dangers of Biological Psychiatry (as opposed to more progressive psychiatry).

    2) Do not allow clients to have psych evaluations (for those not on meds) until they’ve tried therapy for 6 months. Then if they see a psychiatrist prescribe placebos.

    3) hire and seek out progressive psychiatrists (I know this is a small group) whose goal would be to reduce the overall amount of prescriptions and reliance on psych meds.

    4) Tell all the area doctors to stop prescribing psych meds and then sending the patients to mental health clinics when they get nervous about the patient not getting better

    5) stop all benzo prescriptions and require anxiety group involvement to those who are in the process of some type of mandatory tapering protocol. Etc. ect.

    I could go on about this but I’m out of time. All of what I just said is just a bandaid on the problem but it could stop a little bleeding.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Melissa

    Powerful story, great post.

    Benzos are probably the most dangerous and abused drugs on the planet. Outside of a hospital setting, I believe it can be said, that the prescriptions written by doctors and ultimately used by uninformed patients, cause far more harm than good.

    Having worked in community mental health for over 19 yrs I have had hundreds of discussions about the dangers of Benzos with a large number of psychiatrists. They all say they will not prescribe them very often or they will quickly get people off them who come to the clinics with an active prescription. All these so-called good intentions never happen in reality. In community mental health clinics in working class cities throughout this country the number of prescriptions for Benzos are probably beyond belief; enormous damage is being done.

    My experience as a counselor tells me that Benzos will utimately emotionally cripple those that take them for a significant period of time. When people are on Benzos their own natural coping mechanisms suffer “atrophy”(they become weak and almost nonexistant). The mere discussion of a possible taper over a long period of time(maybe over a year) can practically trigger a panic attack by a client in my office. The system is not currently equipped to even begin to provide the kind of help needed for this desperate client base.

    The road back, as you describe Melissa, can be trecherous. I admire your tenacity and how well you have educated yourself in this struggle for your life. I believe that being a part of our movement against Biological Psychiatry and channeling your well deserved anger will serve you well in this battle, as well as help many others. I look forward to more of your posts.

    People who do not know the history of how Xanax was approved by the FDA should read the chapter on Anxiety Overwhelm in Peter Breggin’s book “Toxic Psychiatry.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    Great post and an interesting discussion that gets to the heart of our struggle to to make the mental health system more humane.

    I gave up on the profit system ever being reformed 40 yrs ago. Yes we need to fight for reforms but not delude ourselves into thinking that reforms alone will lead to changes on a huge scale. These corporations and the other institutions that back them are way to powerful to allow alternative treatment models to grow to the level that threatens their existence.

    Doctors are not unlike a lot of people in today’s society in that they most often follow the “path of least resistance.”

    Having worked in community mental health for 19 yrs I have seen how easy it is for the agencys and the doctors that work in them to end up following this path. Alex in the above post says:

    “… we have such a large and active not for profit sector in this country. They can take on these roles.”

    Not so easy. In a capitalist economy “not for profit” mental health agencys are also in competition for their survival with other “not for profits.” This competion can sometimes take on the same “dog eat dog” level that exists in the rest of the corporate world. They must position themselves to attract and serve the most clients in a given area or city or the competitors will get these clients. Today with the proliferation of psych meds being prescribed, quite often first by medical doctors, clients coming to these clinic already need med management from day one. These clinics are now forced to hire many psychiatrists to attract and serve this client base. The medical departments grow very large compared with the recent past, and this puts a major economic strain on community menatal health clinics given the much higher salaries of the doctors than the therapists. However the agencys strongly believe they must have it this way inorder to survive.

    The Biological Psychiatry/medical model has thoroughly taken over the “not for profit” sector in the mental health system in this country. It would take a radical transformation in all sectors of our society to unseat this control. We have much work to do and many battles ahead.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    I have no interest in working with congress nor was I suggesting that be the focus or goal of our work. They are controlled by, and working for, the largest corporations in the country, including the pharmaceutical giants. I am more interested in being a part of a movement that will create conditions for radical change.

    I would hate to see this movement become a pressure group on the Democratic Party; begging or hoping they will support small reforms. This will only deaden the spirit and vision of a new future. Experience tells us that this always leads to movements and leaders being coopted into the system; lowering their sights and compromising their demands.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jack

    Great post; great history lesson; and great call to action.

    To Jeffrey: No human right was EVER won without protest and resistance. One example, Lyndon Johnson and the U.S. Congress did not sign the civil rights legislation because they wanted to; it was because they had to. It was because of all the protests and urban rebellions which rocked many U.S. cities and they also feared further upheaval or a second civil war.

    To Jack, Ted, Duane and others: what about protests and resistance focused on the upcoming publication of the DSM 5? Two weeks ago at the community mental health clinic where I work they showed a web broadcast of a training on the proposed changes for the new DSM. This training originated in Rhode Island and was led by a Psychiatrist. Believe it or not he took unlimited questions from the audience throughout his talk. This was standard Biological Psychiatry propaganda, although he made note of some of the resistance from outside the APA and admitted that the members of the APA commitee had connections to the pharmaceutical industry and indicated that the APA stood to make millions selling the new DSM 5 for over a hundred dollars a book.

    This training could have been easily disrupted in many ways if only just by raising challenging points and questions or perhaps through other more challenging actions. Over the next 6 months to a year there will be numerous trainings throughout the country on the DSM 5; the publication date has been set for May 2013. This is the Bible of Biological Psychiatry that concentrates every thing that’s wrong with the current system. Thousands of mental health workers will be attending these trainings who need to be reached with the ideas and practice of our movement.

    And shouldn’t we here at MIA also be putting together an alternative training with some of our best speakers, including survivors, that combines REAL science with true life experiences in the mental health system. This training caravan could combine with demonstrations and other symbolic actions in major cities throughout the country seeking out various methods of attracting support and publicity. Food for thought.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • David

    Your complements and words of connection are so very much appreciated. Your website looks like a great community and resource for people needing support.

    You should attempt to communicate directly with Kermit Cole the moderator of this site (click on contact above) to see if the MIA site can have some links to your site originating in Australia.

    I look forward to future communication and feedback on Part 2.

    One world,one people.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • David

    I appreciate your warm wishes and the effort you make in responding. I can’t say I understood all of the long points about goups and group psychology.

    I do share your love of music and the Beatles in particular. There is one interesting story about John Lennon and his response to groups that you may not be aware of.

    Above you provided the lyric to the “Revolution” song, including the line:

    “But when you talk about destruction, Don’t you know you can count me out”

    After this version came out several leftists from groups in England criticized John for ignoring the role in historical transformations of “destroying the old to bring in the new.” John apparently agreed with this criticim; so when the White album came out and they added a slow version of the same song John had the word “In” clearly inserted after the line “you can count me out.” If you haven’t heard this you should check out the slow version. And don’t forget that sometime after this I believe he was seen wearing a Chairman Mao button. So John was a complex person open to many ideas and very much apart of the major social movements for change.

    In that same light I believe the current system of mental health dominated by Biological Psychiatry needs to be totally dismantled/destroyed and we don’t have to know exactly what were replacing it with to begin this process. At MIA the production of a new blueprint is well on its way into becoming a reality and I am happy to be a part of that process.

    Best wishes,

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jennifer

    There is alot of wisdom in your comments and I cannot disagree with a word you said.

    I have seen figures, including on Duane’s Discover and Recover website, that the 12 step model of recovery dominates over 90% of the treatment centers in this country. There desperately needs to be more treatment approaches available on a wide scale. And you are so right; there are no easy answers. I hope you will stay connected to MIA and participate more in the future, including responding to Part 2 of my blog.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Michael

    Thanks for your comments. I have been reading your blog contributions for sometime and have admired your fighting spirit and the content of your critical analysis of the mental health system.

    As you know it is not easy working in this system when you are aware of what is really going on beneath the surface. Speaking out and taking a stand is not without its risks, but how could we live with ourselves if we remained silent.

    In struggle,

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rossa

    The pressure is on for Part 2; I’ve been writing it in my head for sometime and it will soon go down on paper/computer.

    You are so right about there not being any kind of wall between the two problems of addiction and so-called “mental illness.”

    I also plan to address some of my thoughts on marijuana in a future blog. It is my belief that it would be very difficult to overcome an extreme state of psychological distress if you are still using pot. If fact, for some people I believe its chronic use can be a “trigger” for these type of symptoms and may, over time, erode a person’s resilience in being able to manage high stress.

    Thanks for your interest,

    Richard

    Report comment

  • David

    Thanks for your compliment and your effort to respond.

    “Do we need a revolution to reorganize the world “out there,” or further realization about the world inside us…”

    You raise an important question and it seems to be a theme in all your writings. The obvious and quick answer is that we need both. But we do need to understand how both knowledge develops and social change takes place in the world.

    A small minority of humans beings are first to recognize and determine that radical social change is necessary and possible. They will spread that message and create a social movement, but it will not reach all the masses of people througout an entire society without completely uprooting the old institutions and radically tranforming the world into something truly new and revolutionary.

    If we look at the civil rights movement, it started with a minority of people and various organizations that grew into a major movement that produced many reforms, but racial oppression still exists on a broad scale because our current economic and political system and those at the top still benefit from it (divide and conquer) and need it to maintain power and maximize their profits. I would also argue that the “powers that be” have the same needs related to stigmatizing people as “mentally ill” and promoting genetic determinism rather than have people look at the causitive factors in our environment.

    So looking at the world today with all its backwardness and on going oppression, yes we need to scream out “WE NEED A REVOLUTION.”

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Rossa

    I am not sure how Laura was using the word “spiritual” in her response above. For some people spiritual has a religious meaning; for others it means a desire to feel more connected to something outside and higher than ourselves. This could represent the powerful feelings one obtains while being a part of an important social movement trying to change the world.

    During the 60’s and beyond many of us in the U.S. felt this type of connection with other people throughout the world trying to achieve similar social change. I currently feel that same sense of connectiveness now growing in the community of activists at MIA trying to radically transform our backward mental health system.

    AA and the 12 step movement clearly divides into two. It is peer driven and helps many people. On the other hand it is also dominated by the disease model and there are many people who are not helped by it, and in fact, turned off and away from recovery by its overly religious underpinnings and sometimes rigid (one road) approach to ending addiction. Alternatives to AA, both group an individual efforts, are frequently looked down upon and ridiculed within the program. It is often repeated at meetings: “Alcoholism is the disease; AA is the medicine; you don’t take your medicine and you will eventually relapse.”

    More food for thought in Part 2.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Laura

    It is an honor to speak with you in this way; I am pleased that you found something useful in my blog. I discovered my awakening during the movements of the late 1960’s; it is inspirational to see right before my eyes the evolution of a new generation of activists, such as yourself, critically analyzing the status quo and very determined to create a better world. Your story is powerful, and your ability to share very difficult personal experience with such unique and interesting insights is clearly advancing our movement.

    Yes, it is sad to see people that are trying to give up alcohol and illegal drugs end up turning to legally prescribed drugs as a convenient substitute. Biological Psychiatry has seized upon the state of our culture of addiction to peddle their meds with phony promises and hidden dangers. Their endless prescription pads have only magnified this culture of addiction. People have already been conditioned to look for some pill or substance outside themselves to overcome their pain and alienation and then along comes all the Dr. Feelgoods making things so legal and proper.

    When you really think about it, both alcohol and Benzos are in the sedative/hypnotic family of drugs. Librium is the Benzo of choice used in most detoxes to help people safely taper off of alcohol. It fools the brain in to thinking it is getting smaller and smaller amounts of alcohol. A psychiatrist’s prescription for Benzos quite often becomes a relapse “trigger” for many people trying to remain abstinent from alcohol.

    And finally, Laura, now that we have each others attention. I want to alert you and the MIA family about DSM 5 trainings that are currently going on around the country. I attended a webinar at my clinic last Monday that was starting to promote the proposed changes to the DSM. This one was filmed in Rhode Island and believe it or not the psychiatrist doing the presentation took unlimited questions from the audience. If one or more of our activists had attended this training it could have been more seriously challenged and/or disrupted.

    Over the next year there will be trainings like this all over the country. We need to find ways to take this on. I also think that a group from MIA should develop our own alternative trainings that challenge the whole disease model with real science and testimony from survivors.

    I will address the issue of spirituality in my response to Rossa below.

    Thanks again, Richard

    Report comment

  • Duane

    Congratulations on your recovery.

    Unfortunately the recovery movement has slowly accommodated itself to the growth of Biological Psychiatry with all its medication abuses. There is a fine line (if any line at all) between illegal and legal drug pushing in this country when it comes to certain prescribed medications.

    Sometimes the “disease concept” of addiction often becomes an excuse for relapse. For example, people will say some version of “my disease made me do it” or “relapse is part of the disease.” For some people relapse becomes both acceptable and inevitable and thus chronic. I will address this more in Part 2.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jeffrey

    “I don’t know why bloggers at MIA would want to attack an issue dealing with physical pain and pain killers to treat it. It has nothing to do with mental health.”

    “Don’t blame opium. Few people in history have died from taking large amounts of opium by itself.”

    There is often a fine line between addiction issues and those symptoms that get labeled as so-called “mental illness.” Biological Psychiatry and their disease model has had a very negative effect on understanding and treating both of these types of problems. I have written a blog contribution titled “Addiction, Biological Psychiatry and the Disease Model”; It will soon be posted on MIA. I hope you will read and comment on it.

    You are dangerously mistaken about underplaying the dangers of death from opiate overdose. In the past decade there has been an epidemic of opiate addiction and overdose deaths. In 2008 there were 36,450 drug overdose deaths; 14,800 of those deaths were from opiate overdose. Opiates BY THEMSELVES can kill people by seriously depressing respiratory function. Yes acetaminophen can damage organs but Oxycontin DOES NOT contain acetaminophen and it CAN KILL you by itself.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sinead

    I have great respect for the work you are doing. I have worked in a community mental health clinic for 19 yrs as a counselor. This is an area of work close to the trenches in which you are imbedded; though not nearly as intense. Almost every day you have to walk that fine line challenging Biological Psychiatry and their disease model with both staff and clients and at the same time try not lose your mind and/or your job. This is not easy to do. You are have educated yourself well and have great courage. If I ever entered such a facility I would want you there to support and protect me.

    Anonymous, I respect your unrelenting criticism and analysis of Biological Psychiatry; I always look forward to your take on blog submissions. In this case I believe your criticisms of Sinead are overly harsh and mispalaced. Many people who end up in locked units in my area are there with some amount of choice; they frequently ask to be hospitalized and know ahead of time it will be locked. They first went to a crisis center for an evaluation in desperate need of help, most often suicidal. It is also true that some are there completely against their will.

    I don’t believe that Sinead is a person that will give up or back down from her principles. She is taking great risks with her aggressive defense of patients and her attempts to educate staff. If she were to be fired (and that is very likely given the strength of Biological Psychiatry at this time) she will not go down without a fight. This will draw a powerful line among staff and force many to choose sides and grapple with their own conscience; patients will also ask why she disappeared. We need some people working on the front lines like this. There is no victory without risk.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    I appreciate your open approach and your excitemet of discovery. As a counselor in community mental health, I have noticed that most psychiatrists are only interested in listening to a patient’s narrative/story until they hear enough symptoms to make a diagnosis and then medicate; and then its ALL about the medications. We all should know the tragedy of this model.

    In opposition to this approach, for me the narrative is so critically important because it hopefully will begin to explain what experiences in that person’s life gave rise to their particular symptoms of extreme psychological distress. If I can’t figure it out, then I haven’t asked the right questions or created a safe enough environment for the person to tell me.

    I believe part of our work in helping people is trying to create conditions for that person to figure out how the particular events in their life are directly connected to the emergence of their syptoms of distress; something that any human being might experience under similar circumstances. Often understanding these connections can be one of the first steps in the healing process.

    I look forward to learning more about the Open Dialogue treatment model in the coming period.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Jonah

    I have had great respect for your contributions to this blog. Your current patience and tenacity in trying to understand and struggle with David only deepens my respect.

    Your descriptions of your experience with psychiatry and the lessons learned are extremely powerful and educational.

    As someone who is a non survivor and a major critic of Biological Psychiatry while still working in community mental health, my hatred for this system and my desire to work even harder to see it totally dismantled grows ever stronger by hearing more about your personal experiences and your overall conclusions drawn from that experience. Thank you.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Matthew

    I would like to suggest that the “In the News” part of the blog expand its coverage a bit to include some noteworthy journal articles and stories related to the field of addictions. For example, over the past year I have read a few journal articles on line that linked the use of marihuana to symptoms of psychosis. Of course we do know that many people who have been given a psychiatric diagnosis are also “self medicating” with other legal and illegal drugs that may,in and of themselves, have many negative effects, but also they may be interacting with prescribed psychiatric medications.

    I have worked 21 years in addictions treatment, including 19 years in community mental health. There is much overlap between the problems of addiction and those symptoms that get labeled as so-called “mental illness;” many people in the community mental system end up being labeled as “Dual Diagnosis.” I am currently crafting a submission to the blog entitled “Addiction, Biological Psychiatry, and the Disease Model.” This will address the intersection of these two types of problems and the damaging effects that Biological Psychiatry and the Disease Model has had on both understanding and treating addiction problems.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Sonia

    Thanks for that heads up on Dr. Moffic”s articles in Psychiatric Times. I just completed the one on “Psychism” with its references to Scientology. Scientology gives our movement a bad name and I completely agree with Malene’s position that we need to draw a clear line of demarcation from that organization.

    It is totally irresponsible of Dr. Moffic to discuss the antipsychiatry movement (his charcaterization) and only mention the Scientologists and then make references to “hate speech.” Who else was he referring to with this type of negative description and why leave out the most significant developing trends in our movement?

    This article appeared on June 12th. He had a perfect opportunity to mention and promote the MIA website with its high level of dialogue, including insightful and scientific critiques of Biological Psychiatry combined with the stories of psychiatric survivors.

    Dr. Moffic stated above: “Revolutions, as exciting as they are, like any attempt to make things better, have very serious side effects and aftermath.” So therefore are we suppose to give up our revolutionary dreams for a better system and just accept the status quo, or, perhaps, instead just plod along slowly begging for minor reforms?

    There is no victory without risk. Just think if other great revolutionaries adopted his view stated above; no great social transformations would have ever taken place. His comments seem to embody the fear of the old order anticipating the loss of both power and priviledge.

    The educated and well directed fury of the oppressed contains great power and beauty and we are witnessing it on MIA blog.

    I am currently crafting a contribution to this blog on the relationship of addiction and its treatment to the diease model of so-called mental illness. I am not a survivor but have worked in community mental health (with a specialty in addictions) for 19 years as a counselor. I have witnessed the devastating take over of the medical model. As a former activist I became part of this movement 21 years ago when I read my first Peter Breggin book.

    If I do get a posting I will be interested in all the feedback, but I will pay special attention to the critiques of the articulate survivors on this blog. I will be nervous about those responses but I know there is much to be learned, “Dare to struggle: Dare to win.”

    Dr. Moffic; please open your mind and learn from this blog. You have an opportunty to play a role in dismantling the old order of modern psychiatry. We don’t know exactly the end result of this, but those most damaged by this sytem will play a crucial role in determining its replacement – listen!

    Richard

    Report comment

  • Steven

    I’ve thought about your comments describing the reading of some scientific literature as a form of drudgery. At times I have felt this way when reading certain scientific journal articeles but not all science literature is presented this way and definitely should NOT be presented this way.

    Science uncovers how the world really works. This can be an exciting and liberating experience and people who write about this need to capture these emotions in their writing style.

    For example, Stephen Jay Gould was a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist who wrote books in a very intersting and popular style. And in our area of interest, what about Peter Breggin and Robert Whitaker, have they not used science to critically analyse Biological Psychiatry in a living and exciting way. I wrote to Bob after reading his recent book and told him that his scientific expose’ gave me an emotional high.

    Whenever an oppressor and their ideology is overthrown or delivered a powerful blow it can be very liberating.

    We all have to work at making the truth we are uncovering about what is so-called mental illness more understood and accessible to more people.

    Your essay above for me was very emotional and poetic in its style but it too contained some science by making us understand psychosis and extreme emotional distress in a new way. Thanks again.

    Richard

    Report comment

  • A beautifully written and powerful story that should be mandatory reading for anyone working in the mental health field. Your search for the truth about your own experience is such a powerful indightment of Biological Psychiatry and an inspiration to all to who have been labeled with so-called mental diseases.

    I love your description of how your journey led you to seek out and learn real science (as opposed to their sham science) and wield it as another tool in your struggle for liberation.

    I hope to find ways to pass on your story in my work in community mental health.

    Report comment

  • Paris

    A great contribution to understanding the true nature of what gets labeled as brain diseases. Both you and Dan Fisher have made a significant attempt to be very scientific about deeply personal and psycyhological experiences of extreme emotional stress.

    Questions and comments: You make clear reference to those things in the environmental experiences of people that are more often the beginning of the existential crises that lead to what gets labeled as psychosis. You especially reference several forms of trauma and cite statistics to prove its vital role in producing the conditions for psychological damage. Don’t we need to take things a step further and carefully examine the types of environments that produce the greatest amounts of trauma?

    Trauma (except for accidents and natural disasters etc.) does not arise out of a vacume. There are certain economic and governmental systems that produce more fertile ground for personal trauma. Patriachy, racism, poverty,for example, are systemic problems that traumatize people on a daily basis. If we can create environments that radically reduce this type of fertile ground for oppression will we not be taking a major step towards ending the materail basis for extreme existential crises, as you call them? Perhaps you make reference to this in your book.

    And on the issue of “consensual reality.” Is there not “consensual reality” and reality itself, independent of any one person’s perception? For example, in this country not so long ago the “consensus reality” was that Afro-Americans were considered inferior. This in itself did great damage to people of color but we can also say it damaged other white people as well, especially poor whites. They were taught to accept their lot in life by looking down on another group of people and it also denied both groups valuable allies in a common struggle against a mutual oppressor.

    Don’t we want to create environments (new societies) where the “consensus reality” more closely appoximates the true reality, especially when itcomes to issues of economic and political equality, that is, no institutions that produce material conditions for taumatizing people; environments that reduce extreme states of emotional stress?

    Report comment

  • Dan

    Another great contribution to this blog. I love how you and Paris Williams have aplied real science (as opposed to the phony reductionist approaches of Biological Psychiatry) to such deeply personal and psychological experiences of extreme states of emotional stress. Hopefully this can be another nail in the coffin that hastens the demise of the oppressive medical model.

    I have a question about the use of the term “consensual reality which I will address under Paris Williams posting.

    Report comment

  • David

    Your “point”, which would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights, belongs in the same museum with Biological Psychiatry.

    The same forces in this society that uphold and perpetuate the oppression of people labeled mentally ill (including children) also promote a consistent patriachal ideology and practice that oppresses women.

    Report comment

  • David

    “…not trying to be controversial”

    “…the wholesale murder of millions”

    “…our attitudes toward life not born and life born…the connection is very consistent”

    You are being very controversial and at the same time extremely inconsistent! For one who claims to be against the psychiatric oppression of children and adults, how can you claim consistency when you so easily dismiss the oppression of half of humanity!

    Women’s control of their bodies and reproduction is a fundamental human right. You cannot be a feminist or support women’s equality without supporting a women’s right to terminate a pregnancy.

    How can you equate scraping cells off the uterine wall with murder or the legalized drugging of children? Ending an unwanted pregnancy is a good thing and must be supported without reservations or guilt. Pregnacy is incredibly stressful on a women’s body and can potentially create major social obstacles for a young girl or woman to gain social parity with men.

    I have counseled many young women who ended up uneducated and living in poverty and/or stuck in abusive relationships with men because of an unnecessary or unwanted pregnacy. And many of these same women end up in community health clinics and put on cocktails of psych meds because they have trouble coping with all these stressors.

    Yes, we want a world where young women and men are educated about birth control and have the economic means and social consciousness to make healthy choices and treat each other with mutual love and respect. We have a long way to go and need many revolutionary type changes before we can achieve this. In the mean time we must absolutely support the rights of women to control their bodies and have safe abortions on demand and without apology. There is no difference between this right and the right to safe, drug free, mental health care.

    Report comment

  • Sandra,

    You seemed to have missed my main point. Medications on some level will definitely have a role to play in the transition to a whole new way of treating people “after the revolution” as we use to say in the 60’s. After all, many people have bought into our culture of addictions and believe that some substance (be it legal or illegal) is the solution to their emotional problems and also many people have become physically and mentally dependent on them and will need to find safe ways (and perhaps very long term ways) to ween themselves away from this dependence. Biological Psychiatry has only taken advantage of the fact that we live in a very unjust and oppressive system, especially for those people that live in the under class. The stress of those conditions plus the other forms of abuse that affect all classes, such as sexual abuse, will ultimately lead people to seek treatment and most likely be evaluated by modern psychiatry; and most will be medicated. In a more equalitarian society stress would be dramatically reduced and many forms of abuse could be targeted and eventually eliminated thereby significantly reducing “brains In crisis.”
    Sandra, there are two types of denial. One is “we don’t have a problem with Biological Psychiatry” and the other is “we have a problem but it is not that serious.” The tone of your blog contribution for me tends to fall into the latter category. Your main thrust seems to present a view that we need to make a few reforms and avoid extreme viewpoints and approaches. To work in community mental health today is extremely difficult. I thought about writing a contribution to this blog titled “How to Work In Community Mental Health Without Losing Your Mind or Losing Your Job.”
    Once again I will reframe my question, in addition to your reform work and work with clients how are you also taking risks to challenge the status quo in your profession? Are you finding ways to unite with others in your profession to “make trouble” and target the leading institutions of Biological Psychiatry, thereby truly grasping the urgency of the current crisis.

    Report comment

  • Sandra

    I have worked in community mental health for almost 20 years. I have been a critic of Biological Psychiatry since I read my first Peter Breggin book in 1991. I admire and support your participation on this website and while I don’t alway agree with your views I definitely see you as part of the solution in this battle over the understanding and treatment of those people labelled mentally ill.
    While some of the reforms and medication approaches you suggest might be helpful as a transition to a more humane treatment model, your overall approach seems to minimize the serious nature of the crisis we are in. Nothing short of a revolutionary change will be necessary to transform the total foothold that Biological Psychiatry has over our field of work at this time. Every suggestion of reform must be prefaced by such a call to arms for a total transformation of our system of care, otherwise we are deluding people about the nature of what we are up against. The pharmaceutical corporations, the APA, the major schools of medical training, and the government that supports and defends these institutions must be targeted. When you say that “… it is important to avoid blame” it misses the mark. It reminds me of the recent thread about “us vs them” in the response to Bob’s recent blog article. For many people this is a life and death struggle for survival in the face of massive overmedication and oppressive forms of treatment. We need to be very clear who our enemy is and at the same time “unite all who can be united.” Yes we must discuss reforms and design new approaches to recovery in light of the 30 years of people of being sold the “Big Lie” about the medication revolution; this includes new research about safe ways to taper off of these drugs. But we also must declare a state of emergency and challenge Biological Psychiatry from the top down; the Occupy APA was a very positive development grasping the urgency of this struggle.
    My question to you and others would be: how do you see us fighting on two fronts where the struggle for reform is part of an overall struggle for a revolutionary transformation?

    Report comment