Thursday, October 28, 2021

Comments by irenecardenas

Showing 94 of 94 comments.

  • Well, said Steve: “It may well be that… trust is only earned after results are seen by the client… The idea that you should open up to a total stranger just because they have a degree or assigned role in your life is foolishness.” If psychiatric practices entrain people to trust strangers based on degrees or roles, in many cases they entrain them to trust predators. That’s the exact opposite of mentally healthy! Predators would fund and promote systems designed like that!

  • So, social anxiety disorder involves anxiety of being watched. Much evidence exists that people’s minds are connected when they focus on each other. Dean Radin overviews it in Entangled Minds. People’s mental sense of being watched is particularly heightened when they sense their health/life is in danger. I’ve noticed several patients start to say the thoughts that would be on the minds of their detainers or watchers.

    These mental health watchers focus on people in unhealthy ways, not at peace that those people are protected by their own inner strengths. Or else why would they watch? They connect to their minds with that unhealthy focus, causing mental unhealthiness through that connection. Yet, they claim the source of this psychological abuse comes from inside the victim — it’s the victim’s disorder, not the watchers’ disorder. Double abuse!

    They need to realize when they aren’t effectively helping. If they insist they mean well, they don’t spend that effort figuring out how to improve at effecting wellness. My boyfriend sensed he was being watched by such people. It caused him great distress, and he killed himself. Rather than provide resources like technologies which actually improve brain activity, these watchers pay themselves to focus on people in unhealthy ways.

    I figure if people with less healthy mental activity than me force their focus upon me, the best I can do is to advise them on how they could improve. If I can’t get out of an abusive situation, at least I can try to get some work done to counteract it. Due to their conflict of interest, they will always look to make the people they watch out to be a problem, so they can try to justify the psychological harm done by focusing on them as a problem. If only they didn’t tell the public falsehoods, claiming they’re working for mental health, when they are effectively furthering unhealthiness.

    It’s becoming well-known it doesn’t effectively help people to tell them they need help. “When you bring students in and say we’re doing an intervention to help you, what’s the message you’re sending those students?

    INSKEEP: You’re messed up.”

    They’d effectively help people better by simply focusing on their inner strengths and mental order, which improves it.

  • If people aren’t being treated in truly loving, healthy ways, they should exercise their right to protect themselves from that. Protecting is loving, as is showing them they can’t get away with hurting people. At least in the US, treatment can only be forced through the courts. People who can assert their perspective in ways that can be understood as sensible and supportable can prevail in court. I was inspired to learn this by reading Fight Back and Win by civil rights lawyer Gloria Allred. The court battle is probably the most widely respected battle, as it enforces respect for rights peacefully.

  • Unfortunately many therapists seem neither trained nor inclined to treat people in mentally healthy ways which reinforce (and thus increase) people’s inner mental order. This is done very successfully by reflecting back people’s inner harmony– what they do well. Technology from that reflects back well-ordered, harmonized brainwave activity as sounds quickly relieves symptoms for good, almost always. Instead, people receive less effective services for years or life.

    Therapists caught in a pattern of not focusing on people’s mental order often resist facing they haven’t been treating people in the healthiest ways. They must model seeing people’s mental order so our culture recognizes this is healthiest. They often feel caught in the socio-economic structure, unwilling to risk loss of professional status to admit it’d have been healthier to focus on what’s been going well with people all along.

    This skill can be learned once people realize focusing on people’s inner strengths or harmonious order increases them. The opposite should only be done as a last resort in self-defense. People can only connect with that which can connect – and only harmony connects, as only harmonious bio-waveforms can join and amplify. This is what occurs in truly loving states.

  • If they found no disorder can you take them to court for detaining you without good cause? It is important for the population as a whole to uphold rights to care about lost loved ones, while remaining free, through the courts. This is very meaningful to most people and they are empowered by good examples.

  • It may seem surprising, but actually docs don’t seem too keen on taking clients who can stand up for their rights in well-researched ways to court. Thanks to Robert Whitaker and, it’s easier to show the doc’s treatment isn’t the most effective or least harmful. Many people communicate with loved ones who’ve passed. Some write very successful, much-loved books, like The Afterlife of Billy Fingers: How My Bad-Boy Brother Proved to Me There’s Life After Death. Over 70% of American adults believe in angels, and over 30% say they’ve encountered them. (Doreen Virtue, Angels 101) I hear the US Supreme court upheld the right to personal religion.

    I had my brain activity measured by a provider of after focusing on spiritual beings for 3 years. The temporal lobes are known to mediate spiritual experiences and were the closest area to my emotional centers measured. They were highly balanced, which correlates with symptom relief. The amplitudes of some frequencies and bands were almost perfectly balanced, left hemisphere to right, So they could coordinate information almost perfectly. If psychiatrists aren’t mystical, intuitive-feeling, they don’t experience firsthand how well-ordered that state naturally is.

  • Many NSA employees are ‘ISTJ, which stands for “Introverted with Sensing, Thinking and Judging,” a basket of personality traits identified on the Myers-Briggs personality test and prevalent in the Fort Meade cluster.’

    So, ISTJ people are engaged in controlling people, involved with categorizing and patterning. These traits remind me of psychiatrists who analyze people using the DSM.

  • In a study of people grieving over lost loved ones, 96% of participants with intuitive-feeling personalities (on the Meyers-Briggs scale) reported after-death contact experiences. 100% of the sensing-thinking participants did not! (Supernormal by Radin: )

    How often do psychiatrists see people as patients because they don’t value different, more mystical styles of perception? Therapeutic alliance shouldn’t be conflated with conflict of interest, when patients become disempowered to stand up for their own personal style in favor of the therapists’.

  • Do some people not think this mother is malicious, since she acts so rashly, so emotionally concerned? Otherwise, might some people consider whether her statement (that Robert Whitaker has “blood on his hands”) was slanderous? Many people have such a stigma against “mental illness,” which is so socially disempowering, that they almost instantly, blindly side with those who want the “mentally ill” rounded up. They turn a blind eye to whether the so-called “mentally ill” are being abused. That’s why their abusers so often do get away with murder.

    The fact that such unjust abusers are allowed to rule over those they label is a humiliating injustice, which psychologically abuses the public as long as it continues. An abused, unhealthy public isn’t most productive in protecting our national security resources. Even indirectly aiding the enemy is still aiding the enemy, which happens when our nation’s healthy productivity suffers due to AMA corruption.

    If a mother doesn’t want her child to know the truth, how can she not end up distorting his perception of reality — disorienting him — which is crazy-making and abusive? If mothers would rather fit in socially, with the politically empowered drug-pushers, than best protect their children’s health, need anyone wonder why their families suffer? Mental and physical health are highly related. If she’s happier with her family dynamics, knowing her child’s health is suffering, how corrupt is anyone who doesn’t recognize that as child abuse?

  • The Biology of Belief cites a lot of medical research, showing families have a great deal to do with mental health:

    “Findings in the peer-reviewed literature establish, beyond any doubt, that parents have an overwhelming influence on the mental and physical attributes of the children they raise.” (p.125)

    “programming of lifetime health by the conditions in the womb is equally, if not more important, than our genes in determining how we perform mentally and physically during life” (p.126-7)

    “For the growing brain of a young child, the social world supplies the most important experiences influencing the expression of genes, which determines how neurons connect to one another” (p. 127)

    “humans unavoidably restrict their growth behaviors when they shift into a protective mode” (p. 116)

    “the experience in the womb shapes the brain and lays the groundwork for personality, emotional temperament, and the power of higher thought” (p. 143)

    “What the father does profoundly affects the mother, which in turn affects the developing child” (p. 143)

  • Well said! The facts, the truth, stands on its own!

    This mom’s letter might as well be her opening statement in the court of public opinion as to why she’s not guilty of abusing her child. Leaving people unsheltered is considered abusive. Leaving people homeless to be beaten up, peed on, and ridiculed is not love – not even “tough love.” It’s leaving people to the wolves. Even common mammals don’t treat their group members so unhealthily, unless they purposely leave them at their end of life. People who are less loving than animals are often bonded to a social structure driven by selfish profits.

    Many people secure their social position in such selfish structures. They gain social power together by calling abuse “love.” Leaving people in abusive environments doesn’t counteract mental illness – it creates it. It gives the impression that the abuse occurred elsewhere than in the family (e.g. on the streets). Isn’t calling abuse “love” psychologically abusive?

    Does she give a well-rounded view of family dynamics? The whole truth of almost any human indicates her behavior is more complex than what she presents publicly. She makes this out to be her best-faith effort, as if she couldn’t possibly be more informed about how to enable healthier environments. She is certainly cognitively capable of learning better methods, but is she socially motivated to apply them with her son? If homeless shelters were the perfect opposite of psychologically abusive environments, would so many of their guests end up diagnosed with mental illness? Technology proves brain activity becomes well-ordered in well-ordered environments, made of highly harmonized sounds.

    Is this another mother who’s in a long-standing emotional battle to make her child out to be the problem, rather than herself? Has she the courage to call for better treatments, if she doesn’t want her son to have to choose between the wolves on skid row and the wolves on Wall Street? Big drug companies are bound by law to prioritize profits for investors. Serving the public good was companies’ priority closer to this nation’s founding by our forefathers, who gave their lives for it. If people can’t stand to do what’s best for all of life (the strongest power), aren’t they more vulnerable to seek the protection of the powerful, yet corrupt? They need protection somehow.

    How many politicians and parents won’t admit problems are due to the social environment they provide? Abusers experience so much inner disharmony that focusing all of it on hurting someone actually makes them feel harmonized. They don’t want to stop abusing. They just want social cover, to claim it’s love, so others enable it. They don’t feel effective remorse over harm done by drugs, not enough to find better methods.

    Some families act like members who don’t fit into their socio-economic structure are not welcome. Getting disability meds fits into that structure by enriching those who fund media and campaigns. Do such families effectively place socio-economic status over family?

    An outcast senses the family (and networked organizations) support him in being mentally unwell, so they can be seen as right for not honoring his mental capabilities. Knowing one’s family and community succeeds if one’s functioning fails creates a psychologically unsupportive social structure. Lack of support can manifest as mental problems, as the mind is social in nature. In supportive structures, others succeed when one succeeds. E.g., a teacher succeeds if her pupils do. People do better in harmonized structures.

  • Lots of research shows the maternal environment (including prenatal and perinatal), and the mother’s larger environment, affect the child’s state. This was discussed in The Biology of Belief. Mothers often feel they will be seen as responsible for the fruit that came from their tree. She may be motivated to deflect the blame she already feels people may direct toward her, even if they do so silently, by just radiating their feelings toward her, or focusing on her.

    Is metaphorically “throwing stones” the best way to solve mental problems? Many mental problems are resolved by working together harmoniously, focusing on our inner strengths, reflecting those back to each other. Obviously, she hasn’t always been able to focus on what she appreciates, to follow that healthy model. She may be painfully aware, even if somewhat subconsciously, that this is glaringly obvious to many people.

    Since she may be seen as a problem, she may be motivated to gain the support of the larger social structure’s authorities, to follow the model of the doctors who have political power. This social protection can compensate for her vulnerable social position in the role of mother, due to her problem relating with her son. Ditto for so many other parents who cozy up to politically powerful authorities in the face of their failing relationships.

    Their relationship with their diagnosed child may suffer when their priority is getting such political protection rather than becoming closer to their child. If they resolved their relationship problem (which is a social/mental problem) with their child, there would be no need to cozy up like that, because they’d be a productive, healthy social unit, serving the overall good and harmonious function of society. So, authorities would welcome them. But, some parents have difficulty being interpersonally close with children whose sentience they’d rather overpower. They don’t like the child’s sentience of the parent’s problems.

    Families would not be wedged like this if the politically powerful enabled the most effective, least harmful treatments. But that’s not what profits the companies that fund politicians, who oversee law enforcement. Still, the current running through the law is really that government should best protect life. It’s what most people want to do.

  • Isn’t Huffpo writing for an audience that is large because it congeals around some fairly common-denominator values of the political left? Aren’t they common because they are often aligned with the Democratic Party, whose politicians (like those on the right) receive funding from pharmaceutical companies? So, messages that promote healthier ways to avoid mental illness — ways which don’t profit rich investors — are less common for that political group. They rally around what their politicians rally around, so they can all congeal together and participate in something more politically powerful.

  • The most important thing is to present the facts to the public. Once the facts are clear, the choices people want to make will be clearer. People can make their own choices. Information can be controlled by publishing it, for example. One cannot control what others in a political movement will do, but one can be seen as trouble by association.

    Obama provided context for racism in his recent speech about Trayvon Martin. Mental patients are often denied context. Their mental states reflect their larger situation, with their family often central. This context is often not recognized by diagnoses, which focus on the person as the problem, rather than the context. People who secure their social position, by not expressing how much their social structures harm them, naturally see people who more honestly express the whole truth of their experience as a problem.

    Many people respond to mental states in a way which utilizes the ancient freeze response, based in the reptilian brain. They freeze up on the problem, staying focused on it. (Mental illness!) They don’t instead primarily engage more evolved, higher brain functions of soothing communication. Harmonizing brain activity actually solves mental problems.

    Patients’ social structures are reacting to problems in a less evolved, unhealthy way. The evolutionary model of the parasympathetic freeze response is described in minutes 10:30 – 17:00 of the Webinar, “Haven’t Got Time for the Pain?” at the bottom of

    I share this unpaid, because I care!

  • The really sad thing is when families claim a member is mentally ill, so they prevent social connections to that member. They don’t communicate with the member, saying the person is a problem until he gets treatment. They don’t give the community a clear impression of how well-ordered the person’s mind is.

    I’ve heard it recommended that people call around to other organizations to get them on the same page with their ideas, if they want someone committed. Family-on-family-member social abuse is some of the most difficult to take – it’s a core foundation of social connections cut away from one person. Such social treatment would drive some but the most resilient insane!

    It’s often done to someone who is not protecting the reputation of the family, as they see it – someone lifting the veil, someone bringing light into the family’s dark places. More people are less enlightened than the exceptionally enlightened, so they are naturally allied to claim the exceptional are the problem. This is why objective proof of mental function is needed, because those of average sentience are subject to a conflict of interest to claim those with far above-average sentience are more problematic than the average are.

    Great Turn Over Furniture reference!

  • Is she willing to conscientiously consider all the consequences of her actions? As she’s probably driving a lot of attention to this site, does she think that then puts blood on her hands? The truth is that the AMA has blood on its hands. It denounced energy machines that were popular and considered effective over a century ago. Proof was called for. (I read this in The Biology of Belief around page 89.) Now, “energy machines” (computers with EEG sensors)can give proof that they coordinate brain activity. This occurs as symptoms are relieved. The graphs of the brain activity are more proof than psychiatry uses when medicating patients, (especially given skewed, bias trials). This proof of real-time brain activity shows medications often destabilize brains.

    Energy machines were probably considered effective decades long ago because they resolved problems. That’s some proof. They became widespread. Instead of letting problems be corrected all these years, the AMA controlled almost everyone via controlled substances. It developed as a upper class version of a good ol boys network, like frat guys using drugs to overpower people unhealthily. It’s well-knonw how men with all their testosterone are driven. If they use their drive to effectively care for a person’s whole life, it’s OK. If they use it in ways that overpower people with drugs, it’s a huge problem. Female doctors often conformed to the norm established by the drug-controlling men.

    The AMA forcibly stopped what worked before that the people wanted – that’s blood on their hands. Abusive, male-dominant networks also raped and drove out the natural healers as “witches,” which is centuries upon centuries of blood on their hands.

    This continuing tragedy is enabled by parents who tell their children this drug network is best. In 1990, the AMA also lost a court battle as they were found guilty of using illegal tactics to destroy the chiropractic profession. (The Biology of Belief, ~p.89.

    Currently, energy machines that work are offered by companies like Sharing information on this technology is the best way I’ve found to best protect everyone possible.

  • This 2011 paper on the “electroencephalic mirroring” technology says, “scientists increasingly believe that psychiatric diseases are a result of dysfunctional circuits spread over multiple regions leaving them unable to properly communicate and work together… These networks of circuits overlap, explaining why so many mental disorders share common symptoms…”

  • Lots of great comments here! The choir is singing on this one!

    Wikipedia says grey matter consists of neuronal cell bodies, dendrites and axons. Myelin composes white matter. Also, “Adolescents who were subjected to abuse and neglect appear to have decreased gray matter in the prefrontal cortex.”

    I’ve seen a video of a signal flowing through a whole path of neural connections. If the neurons are reduced by 5-10%, doesn’t this mean the connections are disrupted? If only .1% of a road at the start is impassable, one simply can’t travel the journey. So, even small damage to neurons can disrupt just about 100% of the whole flow of thoughts and senses.

    Brain technology shows that when all parts of the brain interconnect, symptoms disappear. So, damaging the roads that enable connections ensures symptoms will occur until the roads can somehow be re-grown. The function of the mind is not represented correctly until the focus is on connectivity, rather than just matter.

    Also, diagnosing people as mentally disordered should not be done as an excuse to avoid justice and mandated reporting. That would be misusing victims to avoid stopping predators, claiming their memories can’t be credible in court because police have worked with psychiatrists who have diagnosed them. Why don’t police care more to use tiny drones to spy on predators (or something!) to stop abuse?

    Brain technologies can enable brains to fully connect, and can prove they’re well-connected, rather than disordered. Yet police and “victim advocates” fit in professionally by conforming with conventions that diagnose and treat victims in ways that block the flow of their experience from connecting through their neurons to social support. If the #1 priority is protecting people from abuse, why do police and their related colleagues not adopt the more effective technologies ASAP? It’s an emergency — children and many others are at risk!

    The Whitey Bulger case highlights corruption among law enforcers, who work with psychiatrists. Some predators can be very influential as thought leaders in their professions. They developed exceptionally mental abilities to survive extreme intimate abuse as children.

  • Do people assume that all psychiatrists who give pills that evidently cause brain damage are not intentional abusers? Does that assumption further justice by best protecting people from predators? How many psychiatrists are so dissociated from awareness of their effects that they think pills that damage brains are healthy? How responsible is it to let this abuse occur? How many people unwittingly aid and abet abusers, thinking they’re being professional? If brains are being damaged on a widespread scale throughout the population, when can it become terrorism? Who can process feelings healthily enough to realize what’s needed to protect people from this harm? If government agencies are unwilling to stop this, are they complicit? Wouldn’t our communities be a lot more secure if people’s brains were better protected? And these psychiatrists and their attendants who are damaging brains are the ones victims are supposed to feel safe and protected reporting to? How is that possible unless a victim is dissociated from how much harm these so-called authorities are actually doing? If they’re mandated reporters, when will they turn themselves in? They longer it takes for them to get help, the more people go unprotected from abuse.

    The level of corruption in conventional psychiatry and all aspects of law enforcement that cooperate with it in ways that harm people, even if unintentional, is a disgust to human’s duty to protect and serve each other. We can’t just protect people by acting like doctors harming people doesn’t deeply terrorize them. More effective treatments and less harmful treatments are available, and who in government is enabling them to be widely used? We need to help these authorities to help themselves by educating them, so they know what they do. Also, it’s minimizing the abuse to claim damaging 5-10% of someone’s brain is “small.” If someone beat someone up and that much damage occurred, any judge who claimed that was “small” would be out of a job. People must be able to process enough feelings of disgust – to fully associate with the reality of what’s happening to people — to realize when they’re facing mass loads of heavily entrenched corruption. Only by fully associating with the problem can one fully associate with the motivation to bring about the solutions, to protect people, including children.

  • where psychiatry meets counterterrorism…

    The responses of our nervous systems are part of the rules governing all of life, which relate whether we are in healthy/harmonious situations or their opposite! Scientific knowledge of this order, reported by Robert Whitaker, has helped our nation to recognize the need to align better with healthier treatments. What’s healthy for humans is healthy for the nation composed of them. Improved health can come from working harmoniously with people, many of whom work in government.

    Liberal, progressive causes that already have widespread support may gain more unopposed momentum if they aren’t made out to be anti-government. A huge segment of the population already opposes inequality and exploitation — and desires justice without wanting to overthrow the government. Many business endeavors are cooperative and mutually owned in some ways (e.g. they have many investors and work with other businesses). People can be productive in healthy, heart-based ways.

  • It’s interesting to think of psychological conflicts as arising from unresolved social situations, which can impact the person as heard voices or through feelings that are sensations of the disharmonious situation. I like the idea of thinking through how to engage with the minds f the people involved in the disharmony to resolve the situation.

  • It’d be healthy if more people had the courage to ask why, and to offer social support for the potential reasons for behaviors which others cowardly write off as useless. They’re quick to call behaviors unhealty to fit in with their colleagues who do likewise. They’d rather fit in with the dominant group, for ultimately selfish reasons related to their own socio-economic survival, than to supportively understand the person’s experience through a fuller heart-to-heart, mind-to-mind, being-to-being connection. Too bad for them!

  • People are engaged in many activities or “dances” in life. They can’t be everywhere at once — and everyone is on their own path. More productive engagement is always great. But if people have danced at least somewhat with us, acknowledging it shows that we’ve danced with them too. Much more goes on in the lives of our interconnected minds then what stands out starkly in black and white on the page.

  • If people are going to reinforce patterns in a person by focusing on them so much, at least let them be patterns people want to relate to as healthy and harmonious. Otherwise, they’re reinforcing patterns they’ll then relate to as unhealthy and unharmonious, forcing someone to become more isolated away from connections that are appreciated as healthy and harmonious. That’s cruel, if intentional, and still harmful if not.

  • I think of how the brain and intestines are interrelated, as there’s an extensive nervous system in the gut. Two Awardees at a Peace Conference, including a Chief of Infectious Diseases from Kaiser, were interviewed by public radio. I’m quoting from minutes 10-18 of the African Peace Conference show: “There is almost zero programming about your health on television, in terms of the food that you eat… most of it is laden with chemicals that you can’t digest… The body sees it as toxic, so it wraps these chemicals in fat. And moves it away from your organs to your extremities… you cannot pursue life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, if you don’t have health… with the fast food and processed food industry… we are largely dependent on the crops of wheat and corn… both have a protein… [that] needs to be soaked for 12 to 18 hours before the human body can digest it. But because we’re processing the food so fast, we don’t have time to do it. So we grind it to dust … that flour is indigestible in the human system. And it actually attacks the intestinal walls after you eat it, which is why we’re having this huge increase in something that’s called leaky gut syndrome, where the gut actually becomes permeable, and undigested food goes into the bloodstream. And the body reacts to that as a toxin. So you have this incredible increase in food allergies… much of what allows us to export this food, around the world and around the country is that it has chemicals in it that are not food. And those chemicals attack our bodies…”

    Michael Pollan talked about feeding healthy microbes in the gut with a range of nutritious plants:

    “There’s a great many other species occupying us, sharing our bodies, and we need them, and we need to look out for them. And one of the hallmarks of the Western diet, as you alluded to in your intro, is that it’s been designed to very effectively feed us, the 10 percent, with these – you know, we process food to make it much more readily absorbable, you know, lots of refined sugars, lots of refined carbohydrates, lots of easily absorbed fats, but very little is left for the large intestine, where the real action is going on, where you have this interior fermentation, if you will, that we’re not feeding very well. And because those guys like different food than you do in some ways. They really like fiber, for example. They love plants. They love a variety of fiber, too. That’s a real mistake of I think what we’re doing now. We’re kind of supplementing everything with fiber, but we’re only putting in one or two different kinds of fiber. And every different microbe probably likes to chomp on a different kind.”

  • How would it be if the range of nutrients came from whole, healthy foods — maybe in addition to the supplement? When trauma is generally defined as “a situation that causes great distress and disruption,” it can also refer to any condition that disrupts the healthy, harmonious flow of ones biorhythms — like heart rhythms, brainwaves, or oscillations from the biological functioning of any organ(s). Or any situations that disrupts the harmony of one’s lifestyle or practices. It can be shown that symptoms result from disruption to healthy functioning.

  • It can be even worse when the community is involved in the “therapeutic talking” — when people are told about one’s diagnosis. Sometimes therapists, authorities, friends and families are looking to relate to certain symptoms following a diagnosis. It’s very unhealthy when the diagnosed person falls in line with expressing those symptoms as a way of “supplicating” – trying to connect harmoniously with what their social environment seems open to connecting with.

    Supplication is often inappropriate – especially when people look to see a sexually abused person as “sexually driven” following a bipolar diagnosis. This puts the person in a context where they’re being seen as sexual, when the real sexual problem was/is the predator. They may have preferred to be seen otherwise, but people feel they’re being good to see the presumed disorder. This traps the person in a social environment that imposes a sexual focus – which can be like psychological sexual abuse. It’s most twisted when people think they’re being good, healthy and socially haromonious with authorities (like doctors) to impose this sexual lens. The desire to connect harmoniously with what people see in them, can make people feel they’d of course have sex as the diagnosis indicates — when without that social focus imposed by the diagnosis, they could feel more harmonized socially to see themselves differently – and thus more empowered to choose otherwise. This situation is so awful that people who trap others in this diagnostic lens (or pathway to social connectivity) in the name of love mostly would be in denial that they’re aiding the predator’s objective to frame the victim as the main problem.

    Supplication may explain how problematic feelings and behavior become socially reinforced as people focus on a diagnosis. The focus reinforces brainwave patterns which then flow into expressions of behavior. This is like seeing the person’s inner nature as the source of a problem that can be created and reinforced by the social environment. This recurring injustice can cause feelings that naturally express how it feels to be trapped continually in an unjust situation – to be treated by pretty much everyone as the source of the problem they’re creating. It’s doubly unjust that they’re not focusing on the original abuse as the problem. This is all overcome by focusing on reinforcing mental health by focusing on what’s healthy in the person, which is actually ethical instead.

  • The key point is that therapy should have harmonious effects, which improve health. The focus on a healthy, joyful purpose must predominate. Questioning should be designed to bring the whole truth to light in the most supportable ways. Social support for honoring the truth enables healthy harmony to predominate. If counselors or police don’t interview people most effectively, fewer people are protected. Their procedures should be optimized. I’d also like them to optimize their brain’s connectivity so they can connect most fully with every survivor’s whole experience.

    A joyful purpose which connects our life experiences to our capacity to do good is like a river flowing through our lives, through a deep well within us. Within us are the neural patterns that are evidence of our experience. Predators don’t want us to value the improved protection that can result when we can at least know what happened — and joyfully apply this inner knowledge to protect self and others.

    The dictionary defines “vulnerable” as “open to attack.” People can open healthfully when they aren’t likely to be attacked — but when their inner truth is likely to be understood through the healthiest connection possible. To connect fully with others, one must connect fully from within oneself. Each person’s ability to connect, like “nodes” of a connection, must be optimized to bring the whole truth to light in the most supportable ways.

  • Being motivated by a personal, negative experience of abuse to have the positive, external focus of working to protect others from the abuser enables justice and healthy progress as a society. Rather than driving a wedge between self, others and life experiences, this fully associates the past, present and future into a meaningful life purpose driven by love — a very healthy emotion to express.

    Who is truly happy to let abuse continue, leaving others unprotected? Many clients and therapists do work to associate with the reality of the abuse, to learn how to protect others. This can “require discussing the details of the past.” Child abuse that involves torture is a source of extreme trauma, which involves fear. Children may dissociate — or associate elsewhere — as the trauma starts coming on. Their bodies are impacted by the biorhythms of the abuser’s very disharmonious feelings, which he/she radiates in his/her presence.

    Words can do harm. That’s why hate speech is illegal. Appreciating someone’s inner strengths is healthy; so, the opposite is not. Harmonious interpersonal mental connections are healthy; so, the opposite is not.

    What’s considered to be the world’s largest database of brainwave assessments has over 30,000 — from Brain State Technologies. It proves that brain patterns that are reinforced do become dominant. Their technology reinforces the healthy patterns, which is ethical and relieves disorder symptoms very quickly. Many of their pages show graphs of unhealthy vs. healthy brain patterns — like the rainbow-colored images in the middle at: I’m not paid to share this, but it’s curious that therapists who also aren’t paid to share it, don’t.

  • This reminds me of the extensive nervous system in the intestines — how highly related the brain and intestines are! Here are excerpts from a public radio interview with two Peace Awardees from an African Peace Conference (minutes 10-18):
    “There is almost zero programming about your health on television, in terms of the food that you eat. Almost all of it is stuff that’s terrible for you. And most of it is laden with chemicals that you can’t digest… The body sees it as toxic, so it wraps these chemicals in fat… and you start to become obese… you cannot pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, if you don’t have health… One of the things that is happening with the fast food and processed food industry is that we are largely dependent on the crops of wheat and corn… both have a protein… [that] needs to be soaked for 12 to 18 hours before the human body can digest it. But because we’re processing the food so fast, we don’t have time to do it. So we grind it to dust that we call flour… Well, that flour is indigestible… it actually attacks the intestine walls after you eat it, which is why we’re having this huge increase in something that’s called leaky gut syndrome… and undigested food goes into the bloodstream. And the body reacts to that as a toxin. So you have this incredible increase in food allergies that have come about because of the processing of the food… it has chemicals in it that are not food. And those chemicals attack our bodies over time.”

  • Actually, harmless brainwave monitoring has found that depressive symptoms are correlated with brainwaves that are greater in amplitude on the left side of the brain than the right. This indicates a freeze response. A fight-or-flight response correlates with right-side dominance. This is discussed around minute 27-29 of the Webinar, “Ask Lee: A Conversation with Lee…” (I’m not paid to share this!)

    That company takes the position that brain imbalances generally result from trauma. Once the brain becomes harmonized, people interact harmoniously, and thus more successfully. So, they don’t need disability. It can be great for victims who want justice, as the technology can tell how predators’ brainwaves are patterned:

    Hey, plenty of people can tell us people are great! It’s great when people relate harmoniously. However, many people have been through severe traumas – involving people! Afterwards, they’ve talked with lots of people (many highly qualified and gifted). Yet, still people can’t relieve their symptoms as quickly and effectively as this technology can. If more people stood up within local organizations and asked for technologies that work even better than people(!), much suffering would be relieved for good! As of now, many people are suffering! This is not a faith-based deceit, it’s really happening. It’s a tragedy! Just like giving people psychiatric drugs etc. that harm them is a tragedy!

  • The Department of Defense commissioned the development of a robot to assess depression based on micro-movements in people’s speech, expressions and body language:

    Last I checked, NPR receives much funding from drug companies. Their report may leave many readers unsettled, as it’s typically healthier to focus on technologies that can actually correct, rather than just diagnose, disorders — like — I’m not paid to share it.

  • I think you phrased many things in this article very well. I think this gives words to what many people have been trying to say, in a way that can be agreeable to many different perspectives. E.g., “what the space might look like” and “the still heard words of an abuser.”

  • Yes, many patients may provide answers because they’re supplicating. An article on childhood trauma discusses supplication in terms of physical contact, like too much hugging. It says supplication is socially inappropriate. (bottom of page 8 – ) This could be true of other types of supplication as well. It’s unhealthy to go along with a structure that doesn’t best promote mental harmony.

    It’s healthy when interactions are harmonious. This occurs when people’s own inner harmony is reflected back to them. Technology that does this relieves symptoms of disorders, for good, and pretty quickly ( – I’m not paid to share it). Questions whose underlying focus is on finding mental problems do the opposite. They reflect back inner disharmony. Technology now proves that’s unhealthy, which is needed to prove that so much social momentum in looking for personal problems is misguided.

    What kinds of activities reflect back people’s inner harmony? Honestly, it may be healthier if people played games like pictionary together. It’s harmonious when someone appreciates what one has created, by noticing how it’s effective to help succeed in a shared objective. Just as psychiatrists are going to have to embrace neuro-technology, so will therapists and their related colleagues. Computers can be perfect, unlike people, at reflecting back only someone’s harmonious brainwaves. People are subject to a lot more disharmony than that, but we can be harmonious enough to realize what helps us do better.

  • I’m gut-struck all week by this Lieberman. Hey, not every medical school leader treats his wife well when referring her to a psychiatrist. Who wants to falsely accuse people who know psychiatry does harm of being prejudiced? People care about protecting people’s health, which sustains life. That’s why they criticize harmful psychiatric approaches. They do it out of care, not fear.

    The DSM has been a power grab by those who want to interfere with the lives of people whom they think may impact public health and safety. If people can be perceived to match a minimum criteria, a certain behavior pattern, even over a rather short term, the right to intervene can be claimed before judges, if ever need be. Distributing the DSM involves the public in believing such perceived behavior patterns make it healthy to intervene. Yet, without solid proof that a perceived pattern indicates an actual problem originating in the person, the DSM can be used to fleece justice.

    It’s not prejudiced to notice psychiatry hasn’t been optimally using approaches that best serve patients. What, should people not feel empowered to stand up for what’s right and wrong, in the face of social authorities, lest they be prejudged as prejudiced? To protect health, people must judge or assess what’s best for it. If they’ve gathered abundant information beforehand, they aren’t judging too quickly. Claiming so arise from an out-of-control drive to over-control people’s rightful, healthy empowerment. People who deflect criticism to safeguard selfish interests may want to strip people of their empowerment to judge (assess) what health protectors should do, for goodness’ and justice’s sake.

    I mentioned on MIA’s facebook page how the DSM is more like a fictionary.

  • It would be prejudging, or assessing too hastily, to presume to understand the whole life experiences of these psychiatrists who haven’t pursued healthier treatments sooner. Why haven’t they done more to best protect their patients, rather than their career positions in the APA? But it’s not prejudiced to notice that psychiatry should best serve patients. That’s been the self-evident goal of medicine, traditionally, just about as far back as one can go. It’s not a sudden, hasty assessment or judgment to say medicine should best benefit health.

    Whitaker also gathered lots of information — much more than such psychiatrists generally give their patients or the public. People read it, and lots of other information, before coming to the assessment that psychiatry can do better. That’s not a prejudgment made before gathering all those facts. If a false accusation of prejudice isn’t criminal, at least his mind may need to become more ordered so he can appraise the caring work of his critics more respectfully… and truthfully.

  • It’s their same-old tactic that allows community program leaders everywhere to diagnose people who express that there’s problems as disordered. If you don’t treat leaders like they’re doing what’s right, you must be the problem. The DSM encapsulates that prejudice among community leaders who claim the power to quickly determine who’s the source of disharmony, rather than acknowledging it’s often harmful situations, rather than those who honestly express unhappiness so the harm can be understood and solved.

    I may have criticized Lieberman’s statement fairly roundly on MIA’s facebook page. But he is right in that their best chance now is to embrace the change that has already been spawned by technological innovations outside the standard psychiatric approach. I guess it’s like — if you can’t beat ‘em (or ignore ‘em), join ‘em (and claim ‘em as your own)!

  • Dr. Steingard, Your courage to be conscientiously concerned about doing good by your patients has put you on the right side, the leading edge of this transition for which NIMH is preparing the nation. As for harmonious social interactions, technology can also prove they’re healthy. Brain areas are lonely, or rather isolated from each other, until they all coordinate. Brainwave technology can already enable them to do this. Then one sees the problem and solution as holistic, coordinating the whole brain, rather than segmenting the problem and solution into separate bits. The person and environment then also interact wholly — a coordinated brain interacts more harmoniously with its environment, and seeks and arranges more harmonious situations for itself and others. The harmonizing is done by creating a harmonious environment around the brain which mirrors the brain’s inner harmony. So, the outer and inner become one. Thanks for the good work!

  • It can go beyond “vicarious trauma” to actually involving people in the trauma. Highly conscientious people can start feeling and thinking about how they can do their part to help enable people to make needed changes in their lives. Feelings can be aggregated physical sensations, or rational information reporters on the situation people are in. Traumatic feelings are relieved when the problem is resolved — when they conceive of how to make healthier treatments, approaches and situations more accessible. I’d assess whether a communication primarily focuses on how people can effectively enable hopeful options. Does it feel more like “light” than “dark” (though both may be involved)?

  • Technology could prove death is less encumbered by fear (or involves less brainwave disharmony), in cultures which focus on spirituality or eternal life. Yet, people don’t want to be seen as “pushing” spirituality on suicidal people who are already entangled in highly complex situations. So, technology can prove focusing on harmony in more secular terms – peace, joy and happiness – involves less brainwave disharmony.

    A culture that focuses on happiness pretty much has no worry of suicide. An anthropologist found a tribe in the Amazon to be “relentlessly happy.” When he told them how his stepmother’s suicide had a spiritual impact on him, they burst out laughing. They were so devoted to happiness, they couldn’t conceive of ever wanting to kill themselves.

  • There’s lots of evidence my mi

    When I read the words you wrote “breathing, pausing, grounding, resourcing,” I feel relaxation flowing through my being. (There’s evidence my mind and body are highly coordinated.) This is why I love that technology can now prove, in real-time, whether experiences are creating more harmonious brainwaves, or not.

    You hit it exactly with “vicarious trauma.” I think the practical, effective approach is to move as quickly as possible to the language that relaxes people. When relaxed, more signals can move seamlessly through their minds, so they can conceive of more options to make needed changes. That brings hope.

    I wonder how many suicidal people are victims of predators? How many feel hopeless because they lack support for what happened to them? They may not be able to face what happened, nor their family/friends. Intelligent predators may have included psychiatric approaches in the abuse. Some predators say “bad boy” when they abuse. Others can say, “Crazy! [any diagnosis]!” They know when the traumatized victim seeks treatment, that psychiatric approach will re-trigger the trauma they instilled. So the victim will be considered more disordered (less able to trust/bond with authority), and their memories/perceptions will thus be considered less credible.

    Brainwave technology can bring them hope, as it can prove who has brainwave patterns like predators. ( ) This is a big boon for victims whose predators have cozied up to authorities by claiming “I care about her. She needs help. She’s disordered.” When really, the predator’s mental states is by far the much bigger problem. When psychiatrists don’t treat victims like they realize that, it can seem hopeless. Technology can also prove when psychiatrists have less balanced brainwaves than many “patients” they’ve been locking up. It further offers hope, as victims can turn in their abusers (sometimes family members), yet still be effectively caring for them, because predators’ brainwaves can also undergo balancing.

    I’m sure all your caring attention to these issues gives many people hope, Jen! Thanks for being so focused and involved.

  • I’m wondering how talk of suicide could be most healthfully integrated into the experiences people are already having in school or other places. I hear highly integrated experiences are mentally healthy, whereas switching back and forth between highly unrelated topics is mentally destructive. ( ) If the topic of suicide blindsides people rather suddenly, dropping like a dark thunk into the pits of their stomachs, how can words better transition them into a healthy discussion? How can the healthiest rhythms be woven into the underlying tone?

    I thought the article you cited, “Time for a new Understanding of Suicidal Feelings” somehow flowed in a much more comforting and hopeful way than I’d experienced with many writings on suicide. Even the title includes many words which can open and relax people’s perspectives, “time,” “new,” “understanding,” and “feelings.” I wonder if it’s possible to assess how such “thought markers” could indicate how healthy and inviting a discussion is likely to be.

  • I think it’s good to focus on “the importance of taking collective action to ensure future crises are prevented.” Peter Levine’s book, Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma, discusses how healing occurs when the focus on trauma is counterbalanced by the focus on its opposite – peace, joy, strength. Healing occurs when a focus on an uplifting purpose prevails.

    It’s possible to measure whether people experience harmony or disharmony (in their brain waves and heart rhythms) when experiencing talk of suicide. This can determine when the discussion is progressing in a way that increases health for its participants. This kind of proof could help schools welcome healthy discussions. I’m posting a related comment on MIA’s facebook page.

  • The paradigm shift is needed because so many companies have already been proving that influences subtler than medication can have a healthier effect on brain patterns. Technologies that transform harmonious brainwaves into sounds (e.g. from prove that reflecting back people’s inner harmony is extremely healthy. Conversely, social experiences that focus on and reflect back people’s presumed inner disharmony are thus unhealthy. So, focusing so much on diagnoses of mental disorder creates a mentally unhealthy social experience. This is why using the DSM as a cornerstone isn’t effective treatment!

  • “unless you argue that there is something intrinsically different about the brain/consciousness relationship in mad people. That way leads to the extermination camp.”

    Not really, because neural activity is easily changed by changing what one experiences. This is because neural activity mediates experience. It mediates will and environment. Listening to different kinds of music changes neural activity. So does meditating. When people listen to the sounds of their own well-harmonized brainwaves, their whole brain eventually becomes harmonized. This means all parts generally interact synchronously. This relieves symptoms of disorders.

    So, killing people for having brain imbalances is then out of the question. They can generally easily become balanced, which greatly improves life experience — pretty much however one might measure that. There’s lots of proof of this on – I’m not paid to share it. So there’s no need to think that assessing what mental states are more or less healthy must oppress personal rights. People who can access more harmonious mental states generally want them of their own will, because neural synchrony feels marvelous.

  • I commented on MIA’s facebook page that many psychiatrists seem to be shirking the evidence that the truth of their inner lives can be made known. (It reminds me of Frank Drebin waving his arms, claiming, “Nothing to see here!” in Naked Gun.) They don’t mention that lots of data shows symptoms of disorders occur when brainwaves are unbalanced. They’re relieved when brainwaves are balanced, which is often rather easily done. ( — I’m not paid to share this.) If they can’t seek and embrace technology that can help them perform better, are they over-controlling the profession themselves? I cited a biomarker (or bio-correlate) for remorselessly over-controlling behavior on facebook.

  • Shining a light on the whole truth through public advocacy can be very healthy. Recognizing the credibility of people’s statements is vital to social health and justice. The MindFreedom Shield Campaign page gives an example of crossing state lines to escape forced drugging.

    As freedom of mind is enabled by appreciating a diversity of mindsets, how many people might have different perspectives on what they’d call crossing state lines to avoid court orders? Could that make someone’s case more of a federal concern, especially in some people’s eyes? Could that be beneficial? After all, the NIMH is working for greater validity than the DSM has provided.

    People who enjoy freedom of mind often enjoy considering different perspectives. They might even advocate for their value. After all, modeling appreciation for diverse perspectives is healthy for people’s minds. Clarifying the whole truth about people’s social environment can be healthy (rather than disorienting them by distorting their perceptions).

  • This article discusses MindFreedom’s Shield Campaign. Is it really best to associate opposition to harmful treatments with running from the law? There’s a strong case that people who want to work reasonably with the law on fair terms oppose harmful treatments, because of their unhealthy effects on so many people, everyone in their lives, and society in general. I commented more on MIA’s facebook page.

  • On MIA’s facebook page, I commented that when terms like “wholeness” and “recovery” get co-opted, it distorts perceptions of how successful treatments are. So, mind-boggled people are less likely to sue the APA. People have become so conditioned to the idea that healing has occurred when it hasn’t, that when they hear of treatments that actually heal, it sounds so unconventional that they can’t fully integrate it into their awareness. They’ve developed strong social connections to using the term “recovery” to refer to the experience of “lifelong problem.” Its true meaning has been stolen.

    Many people who abuse drugs, who don’t truly care to become healthier for themselves and others, distort these terms’ true meaning to get disability payments and housing. They say they’re “in recovery.” This appeals to many social servants who think they’re positively helping them. Meanwhile, they kick back with their preferred poison when they aren’t out fleecing the public in broad daylight. In homeless shelters or transitional housing, they can act like responsible citizens by making other homeless peolple out to be mental cases who need conventional treatments — especially if they don’t go along with their con-job sex-and-drug lifestyle. Thus, they discredit the people who care more as “disordered minds.”

    Why wouldn’t this be happening in needy communities everywhere, such that the social structures that serve them don’t realize the need to pursue reforms that actually heal? This problem drains our nation’s productivity, thwarting economic recovery! Pharma is just one business of many! Such addicts don’t care how the nation suffers as long as they can get their fix!

  • Lots of great points in this article! On MIA’s facebook page, I commented on how meds often violently disrupt healthy brainwave activity. A company which analyzes brainwaves and heals minds has lots of proof of this. The effect of meds is mentioned in the Webinars in the “Ask Lee Library” at: I’m not paid to share this!

    A Conversation with Lee – minutes 12 and 58-59

    With Special Guest Dr. Cronin – minutes 5 and 7

  • A name is a kind of label. In The Journey Home by Kryon/Lee Carroll, a true name is described as sounds that convey the energy of the essence of one’s whole being. A label that focuses only on what’s perceived to be a person’s problem obviously doesn’t convey this wholeness. Wholeness arises when all parts connect, synchronously or harmoniously, rather than in a disharmonious, disordered way.

    Identifying wholeness enables people to connect healthily to it. Focusing on someone’s inner harmony (health) increases it until one is wholly harmonious, and thus well-ordered. Brainwave technology does this, proving it’s so ( — I’m not paid to share this). Labels that do the opposite increase disorder, harming people, colluding with the disease, initiating and perpetuating it.

    It’d be unethical to use brainwave technology to play back the sounds of one’s inner disharmony until the whole brain is disharmonized. That’d clearly be mental torture. Yet, awareness campaigns think they’re doing good to promote social norms that do that. They promote labels that reflect back people’s (perceived) inner disharmony. That approach is so tragically misguided that people who follow it obviously can’t take realizing the harmful effects they cause all at once. In that way, they know not what they do.

    Abusers who traumatize people benefit when victims’ perceptions of who abused them are considered disordered, unclear or not credible. This is why I avoid calling people “crazy,” especially when one may not understand everything they’ve experienced.

  • So many great points in the article and comments! So, the insight required to heal is a revelation of what change would help. This often requires the wisdom to perceive the dynamics of someone’s much larger social situation. What social structures could bring about greater harmony? Focusing as if the problem is in just one mind can draw attention away from this much larger focus required for healing.

    Everyone’s situation is different. Yet, many people of conventional mindsets seem to have a preconception that suicidal feelings are driven by anger toward people who’ve hurt/neglected someone. This idea was popularized in the 1980’s by books like the bestseller, Smart Women, by Judy Blume. Preconceptions are pre-assessments, which are pre-judgments, which are thus prejudices. To assess is to judge; the dictionary proves it.

    Such people don’t seem to consider that people who are intimately, sexually, emotionally and/or psychologically abused may pick up on emotional/mental signals from the abuser that his life would be easier if the victim killed herself. A victim gets conditioned through abuse to survive more harmoniously (healthfully) by doing the abuser’s will (so he relaxes rather than traumatizes). A victim whose mind has social connections to an abuser who wishes she’d kill herself may wonder why she’s considering it.

    When she wonders about this out loud, people may not consider that she was selflessly trying to enable a highly traumatized abuser to experience greater harmony (health). Sure, she hadn’t obtained the hindsight that enables a larger perspective on how she’d been abused, how to extricate herself, and how to disentangle the whole situation for the benefit of all involved. Yet, brainwave technology can clarify which person in a relationship has the more tortured, unbalanced and disordered brainwave patterns. However, psychiatrists do not obtain this evidence before leading communities to think the person considering suicide may be selfishly, unhealthily angry.

    Their focus that she harbors the biggest problem to fix in herself distracts her social network from realizing how big her heart is, and how clear her intuition is. Then, people don’t connect harmoniously (healthily) to the true state of her heart and mind. That harms her social health big-time. The worst consequence is that they don’t focus on the abuse as the biggest problem to fix. So, they don’t protect people from its spread.

    Such prejudiced people don’t consider they may be angry with the person who considered suicide. Her contemplations make it clear they haven’t been wholly effective healers, nor have they fully protect her from harm. (Hey, who’s perfect anyway? We can all benefit from improving.) They don’t consider they may be projecting their selfish anger onto their image of her.

    Abusers flatter their egos by underestimating their victim’s resilience and capacity for healthy social power. This is why severe abusers may wish victims would kill themselves. Then, other people who can’t wholly heal could also be biased to see the abuser as the victim of the bereavement, as they might see themselves. Abusers at least benefit when their victim’s perceptions are considered disordered or unclear. Then, victims who realize who abused them are considered less credible.

    Of course, abusers can be women, and victims can be men. Until English adopts a gender-neutral pronoun, I must choose one at a time.

  • My question about forgiveness gets to this point: People who care about protecting health/life want problems to be corrected, so less harm is done going forward. Whether some doctors are considered criminally guilty, or they’re just not thinking (perceiving all consequences) clearly, harmful problems still need to be corrected, to care for health/life appropriately. Since “forgiven” combines “given” and “for”, something needs to be given, for correcting the problem, before it is cleared up. What’s given is the work done to implement a healthier approach. This *effect* of creating healthier solutions can be done, whether the person is consider guilty of *intent* to harm or not. Truly conscientious people care most about *giving* a solution *for* correcting the problem. They care about having good effects, which protect health. They won’t let questions of intent interfere with the effect of creating healthier solutions, because healthy effects are what protects life. This point is very important to people who penalize people based on intent, or else order them into treatment, which they consider a form of caring. They’ll see people as unforgiving if they consider doctors who need mental help to be criminally guilty.

  • Great points about the “hormonal cascade.” Great self-explanatory phrase! I also love this: “a woman needs a sense of calm, safety, and privacy open her body to the world and bring forth a baby.”

    About this: “Perhaps both psychiatry and obstetrics are guilty of pathologizing processes that scare us”

    Does this mean they’re emotionally guilty, deep down? People would say they aren’t criminally guilty, if they don’t intend harm. Or, does this mostly emphasize their lack of awareness about the harmful consequences of their approach? Is it all considered forgiven as soon as it’s corrected?

    Cruelty is “willingly or knowingly causing pain or distress.” So, to not be criminally guilty of some form of cruelty, they can’t realize they cause harm! Could this be part of why some don’t? Could the emotional/social trauma of facing it be too much to process all at once — unless they obtain some transcendently relaxing state that would let it all sink in, healthfully, so they could adapt and reform?

    I commented more on MIA’s facebook page. Readers may also be interested in this article about mothers and babies cosleeping:

  • So who and what is maladjusted? Maladjusted treatments disrupt neural/mental/social connections, creating “lone wolves” influenced by harmful psychiatric drugs. They traumatize communities with mass tragedies.

    Science, including real-time brainwave assessments, proves many creative, unconventional perspectives often arise from well-ordered minds. Their brainwaves harmoniously interact in creative, whole-brained experiences. Many psychiatric treatments are less well-adjusted to health than such minds naturally are.

    Health is excellent and feels excellent. So, it’s good. This shouldn’t be written off as a “judgment,” because we must recognize what’s healthy to protect health, which protects life. If we care about people’s lives, we care to acknowledge which treatments are well-adjusted to health.

    People who claim psychiatric treatments and diagnostic methods are well-adjusted, when they aren’t, are adjusted to corrupt/biased ways of thinking. They think people aren’t “mentally healthy” when they don’t think and act in the corrupt/biased ways that they do. When people’s neural connections have been disrupted by unhealthy treatments, they can become more open to going along with the corrupt ideas of corrupt authorities who promote corrupt treatments. They’re corrupt because they’re less healthy, but administered in the name of health. People believe corrupt authorities when they can’t think thoroughly enough to see the whole truth more clearly, because their neurons aren’t fully connected.

    Biased authorities don’t tend to see how maladjusted their treatments are. They naturally focus their minds for high performance in their professions. They must believe they’re not intentionally causing distress, which defines cruelty, through maladjusted treatments. They see people who object to their methods as not thinking in a well-ordered way. This confirms their idea their strong interventions are needed to maintain the healthy social order.

    Protecting health means clearly stating who and what is maladjusted, and who and what isn’t. This needs to be made clear to judges, so misguided authorities can’t force unhealthy treatments on people. It doesn’t further justice or social health to make minds out to be less well-adjusted to health than they are.

    Many people assume people are being honest and upfront about their positions when they promote social movements. So, followers believe a pure, heart-to-heart connection with their position is healthy. People’s openess to heartfelt connections is to be honored by being upfront about where people are coming from. That enables whole/healthy connections, which furthers the social health and harmony. Please see my post on MIA’s facebook page.

  • Many people think they intend to care by hospitalizing people. Many may not intend to care so much when imprisoning people. They think prisons are for punishment. They want it to be clear they don’t *intend*to punish people by hospitalizing them. They also don’t want to *effect* a punishment either. They don’t want it to be considered correct that locking patients up is not caring for them.

    Cruel punishment is unconstitutional. Cruel is defined as “knowingly causing distress.” Its antonym is “compassion.” For corrections to be the opposite of cruel, they must be intentionally healthy. For hospitals to properly treat illness, they must also be healthy.

    I bring up brainwave technology as an example of a harmless treatment with amazingly healthy effects that isn’t being offered to patients or convicts (and some people are considered both). So, hospitals aren’t treating patients as healthfully as they could, to enable the healthiest behavior. And prisons aren’t either, in ways that can best correct misbehavior and prevent futher crimes. So, there’s lots of important points here for the public discussion that can enable positive reforms.

  • Well, you responded! When people act in ways that are healthy for themselves and others, they should not be coerced into treatment. Healthy freedom should be protected. Brainwave technology can prove what’s healthy, and so can prevent harmful forced treatments.

    Many people who haven’t experienced being locked up think it’s not similar to incarceration. “Hospital” and “prison” are totally separate concepts for them. They don’t experience any similarities, because they haven’t firsthand experience to draw from.

    They feel mentally healthy to consider them different, because they think they’re doing something caring by hospitalizing people. That way of thinking is often the social norm. They feel harmonious by aligning with it. They feel well-connected to many other people whose freedom is protected because they aren’t considered dangerously ill.

    To enable more enlightened social norms, it helps to understand how the thoughts of those who don’t understand aren’t fully based in the firsthand experience about which they’re speaking. So, they’re thinking about it mostly in concepts, rather than in experience. When it’s clear where they’re at, it’s easier to build a bridge to it, to enable fuller, mutual understanding.

  • It may not be easy for people abused by harmful psychiatric treatments to relate most harmoniously about that. However, the fact that they communicate in such an upfront manner attests to their effort to try to work toward better resolutions, which speaks volumes about how they care!

    “Mental illness” may not be the healthiest, most harmonious concept upon which to focus the mind. Yet certainly, there are varying levels of mental health or harmony. We’ve all experienced more harmonious states of more peacefulness, relaxation, joy and love… and not. There are many proven, healthy ways to increase harmonious brainwave patterns, including meditation, music and exercise. Harmony is well-ordered.

    Often, psychiatric treatments interfere with brainwaves’ ability to re-balance themselves. This is mentioned in Webinars in the “Ask Lee Library” at: It’s mentioned in minutes 5 and 7 of the Webinar with Dr. Cronin, and in minutes 12 and 58-59 of “A Conversation with Lee.”

    Anyone who commits a harmful crime is clearly not thinking in a fully-connected way about the impact of all consequences on the lives of all concerned. Some people may act emotionally, suddenly, not connecting well with thoughts of consequences. Some people may consider some consequences, but not all consequences on the whole lives of all involved (including themselves). When people’s brainwaves are balanced, they make more fully considerate decisions, whether they were previously considered mentally ill or criminal convicts. Documentation of this can be found by googling “ Nevada Prison Demonstration”, “ County Probation Trial”, and by browsing in general. This technology can generally prove that people who behave poorly can benefit from harmless mental corrections. I share this unpaid, because I care!

  • Ultimate branding iron! What a turn of phrase! As if a psychiatrist isn’t concept-oriented enough to know the dictionary says stigma is a mark of disease. So, the opposite of spreading stigma is to focus on people’s inner harmony/health. Reflecting their harmony back to them ultimately harmonizes the whole brain, relieving signs of disorder (literally, stigma).

    People’s ethical sense becomes perverted when they’re led to feel good/harmonious about focusing their thoughts on what’s disharmonious/disordered. This disorders their ethical values. They lose their sense to associate health with feelings of excellence; instead, they feel excellent about focusing on unhealthiness. (Disorder Awareness!) So, they lose their sense of how to protect health/people. The more people spread stigma by focusing on marks of unhealthiness, the more social cover they have for doing so, but that doesn’t make it healthy/excellent.

  • Like Sera, I’m not keeping up with this entire debate, though, by scanning it, I can see meaningful points are being raised. If psychiatric workers have the best intentions, why don’t they use the best/healthiest treatments? From reading about court cases on (and listening to Jim Gottstein talk), I understand it’s often pretty easy to demonstrate in court that the proposed psychiatric treatment isn’t the least harmful. There’s evidence from about 50,000 people (a huge sample size!) of amazingly effective, harmless treatments that aren’t even being offered to most psychiatric patients. People who truly intend the best, indeed care about whether they have the best EFFECTS. In this way, good intents work to have good effects! I may address some other topics brought up here when they come up again on the MIA facebook page. When people “like” posts there, their friend networks can see them, so it can have more far-reaching effects to discuss how to improve treatments on MIA’s facebook.

  • If the entire population was offered effective treatments throughout life, there’d be much less need to even consider forcibly restraining them. If people put their time and energy into finding and sharing these treatments, rather than debating about restraints, less restraints would be needed. For example, computer technology can identify well-balanced brainwaves and plays them back as sounds. This balances people’s whole brains, so all parts interact harmoniously. Then, symptoms of many mental disorders disappear. This then provides solid proof (a computer print-out of their brainwave patterns) that their brains are well-balanced. Solid, objective proof can stand up in court, so they don’t need undesirable treatments. I’m not paid to share this, but it would relieve a lot of suffering if more people knew about it. There’s data from over 50,000 people on how amazingly well it works.

    If psychiatrists want to effectively help patients best, why don’t they use this technology? It’s described on — It proves it’s not true that so many people must have disorders for life. It proves balance is typically achieved when meds can be tapered anyone thinks, computers are objective, so they can settle the debate.

    Psychiatrists’ brainwaves could then be assessed too, so we could see how unbalanced they’ve been, and we could then correct the source of the problem! If they want the whole truth to be clearly revealed, why don’t they use this technology? Are they hiding from it, and why?

  • Steve, Thanks for the positive feedback! It’s good to know when beneficial effects are occuring! If we know part of the whole truth that others haven’t recognized, I think it’s good whenever we can stand up for it! The whole truth enables justice, which works to protect people. It’s very important that the whole truth be clearly revealed in ways that people can understand and support! I believe we all have a very important and valuable life purpose. I believe we’re motivated to fulfill it through the situations we find ourselves in. When we stand up for the truth, we also stand up for others in similar situations.

  • While one title was “Too Much Pies,” I actually think this approach of “More Pies, Please!” may work best. Inviting psychiatrists to dialogue with survivors follows the successful model of Open Dialogue, where minds are harmonized by harmonizing social relationships. Why doesn’t this important purpose motivate him to continue working with us, even occasionally, from the comfort of our own computers? Doesn’t he have the healthy attitude that we have a productive outcome to work toward together?

    Dr. Pies characterizes comments here as “insulting,” “hateful,” “personal attacks,” and “abusive.” Is that a false characterization, or why doesn’t he cite supporting evidence? Even if he thinks we might be ordered into treatment rather than convicted, does that make it healthy (or legal?) if he misrepresents this community as often “abusive”? Matthew Cohen attests MIA now has “responsive moderation.” Evidence to settle this is likely easy to obtain, as this text is probably logged in the cloud.

    When psychiatrists assess unhealthy aspects of our minds, they call it healthy. Yet, when we assess unhealthy aspects of their minds and methods, do they call it abusive? Is that not an unjust, hypocritical double standard, which calls us unhealthy for the same thing they do to us?

    It can be healthy to avoid disharmonious social situations. Harmonious interactions enable harmonious, healthy biorhythms. Still, the overall harmonious purpose of improving treatment and harmonizing relationships makes this opportunity for dialogue harmonious overall. When the important purpose of overall health and safety was at stake, I even put up with situations where I was often abused (called the 5-letter “b”-word, though I focus on being very kind and peaceful).

    One can make it through rather gut-wrenching experiences to achieve a productive outcome, if one keeps the larger perspective focused on a higher purpose that’s beneficial overall. Surely a psychiatrist should value working through potentially emotional situations toward an overall healthy result! Here many of us are, open to bonding from the heart, with our deeply felt intentions and serious positions stated honestly upfront. So, there’s no chance of one’s heart being otherwise violated or deceived. Our heartfelt positions are as we state, so heart-to-heart connections can develop to bridge the chasm between our different experiences.

    It’s probably not a bowl of cherries for any survivor to converse with psychiatrists who seem predisposed to not see the validity and importance of our viewpoints. However, it’s a very healthy purpose to work toward social harmony, which is critical to mental health. So why not even work with us in ways which respect the integrity of our knowledge that treatments could improve?

    Pies may not see himself as having no stigma against us in concept, but if he won’t even interact with us, might he be seen as having a stigma against us in experience, excluding us like that? Doesn’t stigma manifest, in experience, as a lack of desire to harmoniously connect? Underlying concepts, are emotions. Left-brain capacities develop out of connections with the right-brain, emotions, and heart. The concepts in which Pies speaks should at least convey his heartfelt desire to improve treatments for those having a below-average to average experience. If he can’t enthusiastically manifest his desire for more people to experience excellent results, does his concept that most get “average” treatment belie an emotional underpinning that’s defensive of his personal career status? Is such defensiveness not overcome by a more selfless desire to serve people better, as well as possible?

    People who express a desire to do better, because they care so much, are ultimately highly respected. If one doesn’t feel one would be supported/respected to admit one could do better, it may at first feel almost unbearably vulnerable to admit progress is possible. However, the strength of one’s love to serve people as well as possible results in the strongest respect. That strong love is the strongest position upon which to stand. It gives one the strongest power to sustain the social harmony and order, working lovingly for and with others. It motivates one, having put oneself publicly on the spot to serve better, to find better treatments. Those improvements bring ever more respect, because they have ever better effects – the best possible!

    Without the ability to publicly express one’s emotional desire to serve better, one is never as much on the spot — in the situation where one is so strongly motivated to find the best treatments. In that case, mental care doesn’t advance as much as it could. Psychiatrists should at least tell judges the whole truth, if they’re emotionally blocked from improving care because they mistakenly think that sustaining the social order requires defending the treatments already in place, rather than championing their effective desire to continually find obviously superior advances. Do psychiatrists even tell judges the whole truth about how often their assessments are inaccurate?

    Hopefully people enjoy MIA’s facebook page too, where it’s fun to be able to “like” people’s comments! And our friends can see what we say, spreading the enthusiasm for better care!

  • Matt, If those newspaper articles were written about my experience, I’d consider asking the editors to publish clarifications (euphemism for “corrections”)… if comments from the “experts” were juxtaposed with the report of your experience in a way that did not best clarify the whole truth in the whole context of the article. If many readers could come away with an incorrect impression about you which could impact your social health, couldn’t publishing a correction help ensure the editors aren’t vulnerable to libel charges? So, writing a letter they could publish to clear up the situation could be a friendly offer that helps get them out of a pinch, as I see it. Perhaps the letter could quote some information you wrote here, e.g. you followed doctors’ orders, which also do not work well for many people who report similar problems.

    If doctors and journalists don’t do their best to clarify the whole truth, they will end up squirming in the darkness of the lies they didn’t dispel. Many people know the media is often biased toward drug companies and conventional medical advice (perhaps to avoid lawsuits?). Many people can read between the lines and detect when journalists don’t seem to be conveying the whole truth. Giving edtiors a chance to clarify important details helps safeguard their reputations as trustworthy information sources for savvy readerships.

    One aspect of standing up for the whole truth is that life seems to keep putting one in situations where it would feel even more uncomfortable unless one keeps standing up for it. When doctors wedge people from the truth, it does wedge people from their trust in authorities. In a democracy, the authorities are the people, so misleading statements from doctors can wedge people from each other. That’s extremely harmful to pretty much everyone’s social health. So, it can be very beneficial all-around to work to correct the situation.

  • Matt, I like your writing style. I hope you’re also reading the comments on Mad In America’s facebook page. When you stand in the light of your truth, you also stand for everyone else who is in a similar situation. Doing that is a very important and meaningful life purpose. Whenever you help clear the path for others, it is very valuable and appreciated. The truth is ultimately stronger than any other social momentum. The more people carry its light through the crowd, the more others can see to follow it.

  • Thanks for your openness. There’s data from over 50,000 clients showing that balanced brainwaves correlates with symptom relief. My mind’s energy was measured in a different way, which showed I have lots of highly ordered intuition; it weaves together information, telling me brainwave balancing is the way to go. It’s really taking off in the last few years. It’s clear just by watching the Brain State guys that their minds are highly balanced.

  • National Psychiatric Radio! That’s hilarious. I’m a daily listener, and have often heard they are funded in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. I hear that’s related to Johnson&Johnson, the drug maker. This new joke name may beat the one, “National Propaganda Radio.” It’s funded somewhat by individual donations, but not entirely! Still, I like hearing how the information is being presented. That’s information in itself.

  • Dr. Steingard, Thanks for the concise, highly readable article. Would patients’ families be open to using the Open Dialogue approach that is so effective in Finland, as it harmonizes social situations and minimizes drug use? Also, how about using technology that gets real-time feedback on how well-balanced brainwaves are with less medication? When the amplitude of brainwaves is balanced (lobe-to-lobe, left-to-right), the whole brain harmonizes and symptoms of many mental disorders are relieved, pretty much for good. Recent Webinars on this technology mentioned that the objective computer analysis shows that drugs often disrupt the brain’s ability to balance itself. Wouldn’t this provide proof to back a doctor up in choosing to minimize drugs if it enables more mental balance? The unbalance caused by drugs was mentioned in minutes 5 and 7 of the Webinar with “Special Guest Dr. Cronin” and in minutes 12 and 58-59 of “A Conversation with Lee.” They’re under the “Ask Lee Library” at I share this unpaid, because I want unnecessary suffering alleviated!

  • enables people to listen to their own brains. The CBS San Francisco Report on “ in the news videos” plays the sound of “human brainwaves put to musical tones.” It states, “When the insomniacs listened to their unique musical brain tones, their brains went back into sync.”

    I stopped the Youtube videos you cited from playing soon after they started. Then, I said the spiritual meditations which I’ve found to bring me harmony. I used to listen to songs from Heart Zones and Quiet Joy by Doc Childre, which were designed using musical patterns that were found to enable harmonious biorhythms. I liked them.

    Our nation’s security depends on protecting our resources. Many resources are spent on health care. Our nation’s people are our resources. Maintaining their health most effectively is thus a matter of national security. Many people may think standard treatments are most effective. Do they think people who advocate against such treatments endanger public health?

    Aren’t people who love protecting health willing to advocate for continual improvement? Isn’t protecting the mental harmony of such advocates vital to protecting our nation’s resources? In the lives of people and nations, doesn’t doing our best mean being willing to continually improve?

  • Jill Bolte Taylor’s stroke of insight on Youtube emphasizes using the right-brain’s awareness of harmony to improve lives. I’m struck by Liza Long’s left-brained focus on rules: “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only… You’re grounded… if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital.” When so many social structures are so heavily rule-oriented, could more balanced, right-brained functioning improve mental health?

    Brainwave balancing technology plays back harmonious brainwave sounds to correct imbalances. Googling “ in the news videos” returns a page with Wynonna on Access Hollywood, stating: “It’s helping people with trauma, vets, and… rape victims. Anybody’s whose suffered a loss of a child, something just so horrific that you can’t seem to heal from it. I’m off the four medications that were life-altering, and I’m just in a really good place.”

    Brainwave balancing has even healed meth addicts and hardened prisoners of many problems. Googling “ Adult County Probation Study” and “ Nevada Prison Demonstration” returns those reports. I’m not paid to share this.