Sunday, July 3, 2022

Comments by [email protected]

Showing 9 of 9 comments.

  • @ Marcello, Ashley, and Donald,

    As the father of a son completing his healing road back to a psych-drugs-free and natural life, and soon to become a peer-supporter, I want to you thank for your very interesting paper.

    For peer-supporters, to get a decent and gratifying job is a good boost for their dignity indeed. But what job?

    Now, to reassure you (or to worry you?), …

    Same in Europe : in the present situation, as psychiatrists are not prepared neither to loose nor even to share their power, IF peer-supporters want to keep their job, in the psychiatric system which for the moment being has no alternative, THEN, just as the other psychiatrists’ servants, i.e. psychologists, nurses, sociologists, etc, they must abide to the rules of the psychiatrists. They have no choice.

    As we know, the guy who has the gold, the power, defines the rule, doesn’t he?…;-)

    There is one critical way to overcome psychiatrists’ selfish and greedy rule, it is to apply the recommendation of Richard Buckminster Fuller (1895 – 1983): “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a novel model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

    That is precisely what they have done in the District of Western Lapland, North-Finland: they did not fight against the existing reality. Better, they invested their scarce resources into the development of their innovative model and curative approach, “the Open Dialogue Therapy”.

    As a result, they rendered the following items obsolete :

    * the DSM-books,
    * the ghost-written psychiatry textbooks published for the last 25 years,
    * the toxic psych-drugs,
    * the academic psychiatry literature of the last 70 years,
    * the dogmatic and symptomatic approach to mental illnesses,
    * the existing psychiatry as practised in the Western cultures and rich countries (W.H.O. meaning),
    * the expensive psychiatric hospitals,
    * …

    In this innovative and curative “Open Dialogue” approach, where, with all due respect to polyphony, every voice counts, and with the flattened hierarchy, peer supporters have a place equal to psychiatrists.

    Their place is also equal to psychologists, nurses and sociologists.

    That is how and why, in Western Lapland, they succeeded to eradicate schizophrenia from their District.


    The good news:

    1) In Norway, with their Law of 2015, obtained thank to Associations of parents-tax-payers (taxes used so far to pay fat fees to psychiatrists), they are thriving to reach the same result.

    2) In the little Kingdom of Belgium, although we have a late start, we are thriving too.

    (smile again)

    With all my encouragements to build your novel model on your side of the pond too, …

    (many more smiles)



  • Hi Bob,

    Thank you for your paper.

    Here in Belgium, on March 5th 2020, we had a Study Day on DSM-V organised by the Superior Health Council (part of our Federal Government), entitled: “DSM UNDER SCRUTINY: Why we need to be cautious and how to use it (Nevertheless)?”

    Dr. Francois Gonon of the University of Bordeaux had a very interesting lecture entitled, “The doublespeak of neuroscience-based psychiatry.”

    There was also a lecture presented by Dr. Niall Boyce (founding Editor The Lancet Psychiatry) : “What’s wrong (and right) with diagnosis ?”

    You may find the slides of their lectures and download them from here (scroll down to 5 March 2020):


    As a research scientist, one day, I asked to one of the 20 psychiatrists that my son had in 2 years time, “why don’t you pay attention to traumas, which look like the cause of schizophrenia? – His answer: “The private life of your son does not interest me. I care for his symptoms and I write prescriptions.”

    Then I asked him what does he know about the Healing Therapies, e.g. “Open Dialogue”, developed in Scandinavia?” – His answer: “Oh, I heard a few things but it does not interest me. Here in Belgium, we are at the forefront of psychiatry. Look the DSM-5 was published 2 weeks ago, and it is already on my desk.”

    Although the word medicine means “the Art to cure”, psychiatrists never raise to themselves the fundamental question: Ho and why is it possible that me, a medical doctor, I do not apply” the Art to cure” to my patients?

    Similarly, professors of psychiatry never raise to themselves the next fundamental question: “How and why is it possible that me, a professor of medicine, I do not teach to my students “the Art to cure”?

    Hence, we can observe the following: Students in psychiatry are educated by incompetent professors for becoming incompetent too…


    So, maybe that you will submit your paper to Dr. Niall Boyce (founding Editor The Lancet Psychiatry).

    Keep up the good work!


  • Hi Alan,

    Sorry that your son was forced back into psychiatry upon his return to Canada.

    Living in Belgium, that did not happened to mine. As yet!

    « Medicine » means « the Art to cure! »

    Although curing therapies exist, dogmatic psychiatrists pretend that so-called mental illnesses are incurable and they do not practice the Art to cure, i.e they do not deliver the service that we, parents-tax-payers, we pay for.

    Therefore, we, parents-tax-payers, we must unite and organize ourselves for stopping to pay them, so that we can invest our money in curing therapies.

    Stop the flow of our money to the pharmaceutico-psychiatric industry, and the system will collapse!

  • Hi Phil,

    You stated: ““The fact is, there could never have been a scientifically based ‘chemical imbalance theory’ of mental illness, because a genuine theory requires an integrated network of well-supported, interlinked hypotheses. And yes, the frequently ignored distinction between a theory and a hypothesis is crucial. It is the key to understanding why claims by antipsychiatry bloggers regarding the CIT nearly always crash and burn.””

    You forgot a key point, that I learnt while attending a lecture presented by Dr. Joanna Moncrieff in March 2016, at Leeds University, during the “History of Mental Health Conference”:

    In the 1990s, the “Chemical Imbalance” has been turned from a scientific hypothesis into an efficient “marketing slogan”.

    The major marketing managers’ task is not to prove that a scientific hypothesis is right; it is to convince people to buy and to consume more of their company products for their profit.

    In order to convince people to believe in their slogan, on the US market, they have a marketing budget of US$ 5 billion dollars per year, and on the European market, an additional budget of some 5 billion Euros per year…

    Marketing directors of big-pharma do not care about science; they care about using two words only, i.e. “Chemical Imbalance”, as a slogan to make more money.

    No matter how good their arguments could be to demonstrate the flaw of the chemical imbalance hypothesis, no scientist, no psychologist can beat that slogan, that budget.

    If you want to beat that slogan, there is only one way: to cut the flow of money from psych-drugs consumers to big-pharma.

    In order to achieve that, you got to offer to these Consumers a higher Quality of psychiatric products and services at a lower Price.

    The rule of the Q-10 applies: If you can offer to Consumers a Quality/Price ratio at least 10 times better, they will be quick to switch to the innovation.

    As you may know, the “Open Dialogue Therapy” offers just that: about Quality, it can cure 80 to 85% of the sufferers of psychosis, versus 0% with the existing psychiatry, and, depending on the point of application, in families or communities, at a Price 15 to 30 times cheaper than the existing psychiatry.

    In your conclusion, you perceive it right: “After all, if there is really no chemical imbalance, and the world was told and believed the truth, many powerful individuals who have made their life from the lie would not only lose their income, but the source of their prestige and power.”

    You have to hit where it hurts: cut the flow of money from consumers to super-rich shareholders. Shareholders will not become poor. They will only become a little less rich, and then, they will switch their investments towards other opportunities.


  • Hi Alan,

    I am also a father of a son who felt into both schizophrenia and psychiatry. So, I can relate and I want to thank you for your testimony. Too few fathers do that.

    Above psychiatry, there is big money. For instance, in its 2018 BioTech Report, Goldman Sachs raised the question: “To cure patients, is it a sustainable business?”… Money corrupts everything…

    Below big money and big pharma, we have the psychiatric “dogma”: “psychosis, bipolarity, schizophrenia are incurable illnesses rendering sufferers disabled for life and psych-drugs-dependant for life!”

    DOGMA, according to Wikipedia tonight:

    “Dogma is an official system of principles or doctrines of a religion, such as Roman Catholicism, or the positions of a philosopher or of a philosophical school such as Stoicism.

    In the pejorative sense, dogma refers to enforced decisions, such as those of aggressive political interests or authorities. More generally, it is applied to some strong belief whose adherents are not willing to discuss it rationally. This attitude is named as a dogmatic one.”

    Therefore, we can never discuss with 99.99% of the psychiatrists. They will never accept to discuss their dogma rationally. It is too money-making for them.

    What we can do is to organise ourselves to stop paying them. Hence they will become powerless.

    After all, we parents, we are tax-payers, and via our heath insurances, psychiatrists are paid by our taxes. We are customers, and customers are King!

    So, let’s stop paying them, i.e. both psychiatrists and big-pharma, and let’s use our money for shifting the paradigm towards the existing, but little known therapies for healing, back to a psych-drugs-free and natural life.

    Simple, isn’t it?

    Kind regards from the little Kingdom of Belgium,


  • Hi Bramble,

    Yes, and in addition to your list, let’s remember the high number of depressive women in their fifties, being abused and blurred to ECT by male psychiatrists.

    Let’s follow the money trail:

    In 2013, in the Netherlands, a series of 10 ECT sessions costed some € 30,000. Each session at € 3,000 covers the fees for the psychiatrist (325 €/hour in Belgium), the anaesthetist, the nurses, and the cleaner, plus the bed for the day.

    In the USA, as psychiatry costs are usually higher than in Europe, it may be more US$ 30,000 for a series of 10 ECT sessions. Thus, for the moment being, let’s assume a minimum of US$ 30,000.

    So, 100,000 persons/year, times 30,000 US$/person, that is a turn-over (T.O.) of some 3 billion US$/year.

    If it is one million persons (ten times more), then, it is a T.O. of some 30 billion US$/year.

    I believe that 3 to 30 billion US$/year, i.e. a very high level of greediness, is what motivates psychiatrists to be reckless and ruthless to their patients and to cause them brain damages.

    Then, denying brain damages, ensures a permanent yearly income.

    To follow the money trail explains a lot of things, including many nasty things indeed.

    Reference for the ECT Costs in The Netherlands, dating to 2013: on this webpage, in Dutch, scroll down to the sub-title “Hoge Kosten”:

  • Hi Mr Connor M. Karen,

    Just checking that figure of one million: is it really one million people, or is it one million ECT sessions?

    * Population of the USA = 325 millions
    * 1% schizophrenics = 3.25 millions
    * 2% bipolars = 6.5 million

    Total, that is a little under 10 millions psychotics.
    Because psych-drugs shorten their lives by 25 years, once diagnosed and poisoned, they live for about 40 years (from 20 to 60).
    Thus, 10 millions psychotics divided by 40 years, that is about 250,000 new psychotic cases per year.

    So, IF 100,000 people/year get 10 sessions ECT each, THEN that is 1 million ECT sessions/year.

    IF ever it is one million people/year, THEN within 10 years, all the 10 millions psychotics have been administered ECTs.

    IF ever it is one million people/year, then after 40 years, 40 million people having had ECT would be running around.

    Hence the figures of 100,000 psychotics getting a total of one million ECT sessions look more credible to me.

    Again, IF it is a total one million people/year, thus 40 million people within 40 years, where would the other 900,000 people/year come from?