Sunday, September 19, 2021

Comments by dmschlom

Showing 15 of 16 comments. Show all.

  • Um, wow. I think, in some ways, depression and ptsd are neurological — but just in such a super complicated way, science won’t figure out directly how they should be treated. Humans evolved with instincts that help them instinctively “know” or be able to “figure out” how they should be treated.

    Just as, I think religion evolved, organized religion evolved, because it has always been some form of societal construct that results in positive mental health rather than negative mental health.

    That is a scientific way one can think of it. Dry and scientific. And no fun.

    But I believe in the spiritual too and feel there is no sharp dividing line between the “dry scientific” and “spiritual.” I do suspect some intuition and foresight maybe could be seen as quantum mechanics in the brain.

    Meaning, it’s “scientific.” Even so, I would still not dismiss the spiritual.

    I DO think a big problem with modern day society is that science does not respect or even positively DIS-respects the spiritual.

    Which is strange and awful — and also anti-scientific too. It fully makes sense to argue that the spiritual amounts to collective wisdom we evolved over eons, because it gave us a competitive advantage.

    Just like how maybe WE as babies are not born knowing how to walk, yet deer are born knowing to walk, because they evolved that ability HARD WIRED in the brain, we evolved the tendency towards spirituality HARD WIRED IN THE BRAIN.

    Scientists and academics need to RESPECT THE SPIRITUAL much more. Respect it AND respect it AS something that is scientific. Respect it in a scientific way.

    Rather than, we have a form of ghettoization today where those who would embrace the spiritual try to define themselves overly in contrast to science, and in such ways so that they don’t really have the best language for describing the various spiritual or psychic phenomenon they both believe in and experience and know others who experience.

    I have been both very scientifically trained and also with lots of spiritual ability and someone who hung out around psychics, lots of psychics, and maybe was “trained” in that too, in some kind of informal way. But all in such a way so that I can speak both languages. As well as see the scientific consistency in much of my intuition.

    Much of which I have actually written down, over the course of many years, and ended up stored in my computer files. It’s very interesting, actually.

    Anyway, what’s the difference between “psyche” and neurology? Maybe “psyche” is neurological in such an extraordinarily complicated way that we will never be able to have advanced mathematics complex enough or sophisticated enough to be able to study it using tools of neurology. But the psyche evolved along with innate wisdom about the psyche, enabling us to rely on that innate wisdom, when scientific tools would fail, and we call that reliance on innate wisdom “psychology.”

    But here’s the thing. Psychology can be distorted and corrupted, in a societal way where the whole society ends up somewhat unhealthy. And when that takes place, the only way it can be fixed is by people who believe in themselves strongly and believe in their intuition very strongly, and who resist the lemming-like mindset of the herd. And who resist it strongly enough so the herd eventually rights itself. Here is an interesting fact about human society. All of society can start going in the wrong direction, in a lemming like manner, where the majority all “agree” with one thing that is wrong. All “agree” — but not really too fervently.

    It only takes a VERY few group of people in society, who are REALLY grounded and who REALLY believe in themselves. To speak up, speak the truth, hold their ground, and not back down. And get the majority to wake up, think about things, and change their minds.

    Feminist legal scholar, Catharine MacKinnon, wrote a book called The Butterfly Effect recently. The title of her book recognizes that same point.

  • “Why not leave the brain work to neurologists and return psychology (and psychiatry, if you could ever drag them away from their love affair with drugs and other toxic interventions) to the actual study of their subject, the psyche?”


    Because mental health issues, all of them, ARE of the brain. What is the “psyche” anyway? It’s ill defined.

    Everything is neurological. I am a victim of brain injuries so I know. Also, sitting down and talking to a therapist? Honestly, the truth is, we are brainwashed into doing that — rather than a whole bunch of other things — because therapists need jobs and steady careers.

    I believe the soteria project involved people talking to schizophrenics and curing them of it — not sitting down in an office but WALKING WITH THEM. The walking with them part VERY important.

    Academia just has this psychology profession, which makes a lot of money. And it all works out so the (fake) notion is that you solve “psychological problems” by going to some psychologist, sitting down with them in their office, and paying them money.

    I have seen therapists in the past and, frankly, found it all to be really stupid. The social stimulation is good. But you can get that anywhere. The idea that you need to see a “professional” is — well, maybe it’s not 100 percent a scam, but to some degree it is. We used to have religion that involved teaching universal moral values, and I am not big on Christianity, but I have to say, the advantage of going to church is that enough people in the community get innoculated as to the right values of living in a social society, so it’s almost like you don’t need professional psychologists as much, if everyone went to church once a week — or something that was LIKE church. After all, I agree Christianity is obsolete, but something more modern should be put in its place to fill the gap it left. There is a NEED for that in human society.

    By the way, are you aware that Adolph Hitler did a ton of experiments in psychology? Well, not him personally. Nazi doctors. And some of what they figured out was imported to America, tricks to be used by the mafia.

    And then George W. Bush also goes and pays psychologists on some project regarding psychological torture and terrorism. Which everyone agrees was not a terror prevention program.

    Who knows what their interests were or what their agenda was. But the truth is, people usually have a pretty good understanding of their own self interests and are not stupid about it.

    For some reason, the conventional wisdom is that the government war on terror apparatus was “just being real stupid” with regard to their obsession with psychological torture and terrorism. The truth is that, as regards how to get confessions, no new research ever needed to be done. It’s common knowledge what works and what doesn’t work.

    I really feel, though, that psychological torture as a tool in the hand of would be terrorists, who wish to use it to incite OTHERS into committing terrorism, strikes me as much more of a research area where interesting things could be explored.

  • The truth is, we are living in the dark ages when it comes to psychiatry and mental health and understanding the brain.

    Also, another interesting thing is, the brain is a mathematical system. Where I do think brain activity — and imbalances in brain ACTIVITY — can be seen similarly to what physicists call “standing waves.” You know how, in the brain, when one part of the brain gets extra active, it will selectively activate certain other parts of the brain while selectively dampening other parts. Similar to how, in a container of water, you will have several waves with peaks and troughs.

    When I was recovering from criminally induced PTSD via mountain climbing and other stuff like that, first of all I noticed that the same exercise indoors didn’t help, it had to be outdoors, and then I intuited, the biggest difference is the olfactory stimulation you get outdoors. Sure enough, olfactory sense networks with a bigger part of the brain than any other sense, meaning the capacity for olfactory sense to stimulate the brain or affect stimulation is bigger than anything else.

    The olfactory sense stimulates the brain — even while muscles produce chemicals in response to exercise, which get into your blood stream and go right to your brain. I will say, I think various parts of the brain will ignore those chemicals, if not being stimulated via olfactory sense the most (and the other senses too) at the same time. But, somehow, these chemicals plus the sensory stimulation causes the part of the brain that over reacts in response to ‘fight or flight’ adrenaline and causes PTSD — and which probably is implicated in schizophrenia which is something like a malfunction that is still tied to the brain’s “sensing of danger” — to re-evaluate, re-program, and change course. Permanently, though.

    As someone who took courses in math and physics, though, as I see myself slowly overcoming PTSD via mountain climbing, I visualized the process via thinking of physics and standing waves. The anxiety/fear/PTSD part was like a whole part of my brain had gotten way over stimulated or too liable to stimulate too intensely. Too active. And so strong, it stifled and totally clamped down on and completely shut down other parts of the brain more willing to re-evaluate “danger” and agree I was no longer in danger then (which I no longer was — but knowing that in an “intellectual” sense wasn’t the same as REALLY knowing that in ALL of my brain).

    The mountain climbing, I just know, helped to calm down the anxiety part some, helped to stimulate the strengthen the other parts capable of keeping that anxiety part in check. Not just temporarily but, over time, permanently. But, actually, part of it is I distracted myself by becoming involved with intellectual stuff — which meant kind of “growing” a different part of my brain, which then got strong enough so as to shut down the over active “anxiety/fear” part.

    I ought to note, when studying math, I did a bit of set theory and then on my own started to think of how you could use that material to mathematically model the brain — which I later found out was a topic that had already been invented before I thought of it. “Neural networking,” it is called.

    I think they ought to get mathematicians, and good ones too, to start to think about the field of mental health, and see what they can imagine. Because I bet you could make some breakthroughs. Most psychiatrists, I note, are not mathematicians. And do not have mathematical literacy, which is something where it’s all hard wired into the brain. You either have it or you don’t. If you don’t have it, you will be incapable of being educated into it.

    So I imagine most psychiatrists would not like my suggestions at all. Especially the male ones who guard their academic “territory” very ferociously. I’ve been through this before. As a teenager I was involved in grassroots politics and wrote letters to the editor of local papers, including an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal at age 19. This was in Cambridge, MA. Well, I remember one Robert Winters who loved being an expert and talking in an authoritative way, like how some psychiatrists are. Well I was shy and didn’t talk, usually. But there was one time I’m standing with people in a conversation with Robert Winter about something, they are talking about something I know about. So I bravely muster up the courage to pipe in and say something. The moment I start talking, he instantly and very aggressively interrupts, cuts me off, and says something authoritative just to prevent me from joining in. It was clear he felt “threatened” by me, as a lot of people say.

    “They’re just threatened by you,” I have heard over and over again. Referring to my intellect, not my muscles, I note.

    Anyway, they should have mathematicians join the field of mental health, and see if they can use their math skills to somehow gain insights that might help. However, they will have to watch out for the attack dogs presently in the field. When I was at Harvard, I was told by administrators all about how each field is like it’s own fiefdom, where they ward off outsiders, and this results in intellectual segregation that is very bad. It is possible for people of another discipline to contribute insights to a discipline different from their’s. All sorts of amazing work could be done. It all isn’t done because of the territoriality of people in each discipline.

    Academia ends up being pretty stupid because of that. I would say the social studies, in particular, are especially dumbed down due to lack of contributions from people with anything even approaching rudimentary math skills. Actually, my mother had math skills and tried to go into sociology. Let’s just say, it was quite a disaster. Ostracism, backstabbing, etc.

    And I am not surprised. Every time I read an article that discusses sociology or anthropology or even theories regarding evolution, as someone with rigorous math skills, the stupidity and mathematical ineptness I can obviously see from the people presently in the field is very annoying. I get inspired to write facebook posts or blogs contributing my own insights, based on my mathematical mind, and I think they are good ones too. But no one, currently in the field, ever thought of them.

    Can you imagine trying to socialize with existing academics in a field like that? And, of course, I am a socially sensitive person who would know better than to explain to people that they are being stupid about something.

    Actually, one of my ideas I had re: evolution was, I noticed that the best way to deal with anxiety and depression is not merely to do outdoor exercise. Location and climate matters too. The white mountains of New Hampshire which are somewhat high altitude, and have lots of streams with cold water crashing over rocks makes the biggest positive impact of all.

    Why would we have evolved that way? Because routine climate change occurs. Absent those mental health issues, during wet periods, human beings might have chosen to move to much easier-to-navigate valleys that would, in time of drought, dry up causing everyone to die. But not if depression and anxiety – especially among women – forced everyone to live closer to mountainous areas. Which will be the places that stay wet in times of drought, unlike the valleys and plains.

    The moment people move — in wet periods — to the seemingly more welcome valley, some women, more prone to depression, will start saying “I just don’t feel right, I feel scared, I want to go back to the mountains, I felt better there.”

    Oh yes, here is the facebook post I wrote about it.

    Isn’t it a theory that ought to be considered potentially valid?

  • Now in my case, well I really do suffer from ADHD and a tendency towards anxiety, but that is all. And so does my twin brother. We were given fake diagnoses and lied to by doctors at Harvard who wanted to conduct unethical medical experiments on us — and it’s a long complex story.

    However, eventually — well, the sickening part of it was to conduct a series of horrific crimes perpetrated by the mafia, cover these crimes up, and then fraudulently portray the very severe PTSD and trauma as spontaneously appearing symptoms of schizophrenia — and they hoped they would be able to claim no one had done anything to us.

    I was legally savvy. My twin brother wasn’t and I couldn’t get him to listen to me about the importance of keeping paper trails. Anyway, I kept paper trails and took them to a lawyer and they proved the abuse badly enough so people were willing to admit that I’d been abused and my then fragile mental state (not what I started out with, what the perpetrators caused in me by what they did) was the result of abuse and very serious crimes. Actually, I even had physical damage from some pretty undeniable rapes, it was that bad. As well as clear cut brain damage.

    However, had I not gotten a lawyer at the right time, they would have declared it all schizophrenic — and then if you put someone suffering from that kind of PTSD on anti-psychotics, it inhibits the part of the brain that might have the capacity to recover on its own.

    They know that too, and the sickening part of psychiatry is how often they will misdiagnose trauma, and how much they know if such a misdiagnosis leads to an anti-psychotic, they can use the anti-psychotic to permanently incapacitate an abused and exploited victim. And, yes, they do this fully knowing what they are doing, it’s that evil.

    Actually, in my case, it wasn’t just trauma trauma. I had head trauma inflicted which, again, makes it even harder for the brain to re-develop the connections it must develop to overcome PTSD. And would have made an anti-psychotic even more debilitating and detrimental to my recovery.

    But that is all theoretical. And that is all the danger I knew about, hence my rigorous keeping of paper trails and legal savvy I used to protect myself from that.

    However, even after getting the attorney, I was still in a very debilitated state of mind. Terrible PTSD which could easily look like schizophrenia if you didn’t know what had happened to me.

    The one thing that worked the best for my recovery was outdoor exercise and mountain climbing. For some reason, exercise combined with exposure to nature — which stimulates the olfactory sense, biggest interface between one’s environment and the brain — helped my brain overcome those ingrained “ruts” I was stuck in with PTSD. And stimulated it to grow new and more positive connections.

    Actually, there was a study done on elderly people which shows OUTDOOR walking — but not indoor exercises — stimulates the brain to grow more brain cells and make more connections.

    I am certain that overcoming PTSD — but also probably overcoming other issues like schizophrenia — is best done by stimulating the brain to grow more brain cells like this. And I speak of this as a victim of trauma and ptsd and brain damage leading to certain cognitive impairments. Mountain climbing outdoors IS like a drug that impacts one’s brain. Also, the environment one does it in counts too. Higher altitude mountains with lots of cold running water crashing over rocky streams has a better or at least different impact compared to hotter, lower altitude and more “stagnant” air environments.

    Hiking the white mountains of New Hampshire will have a different impact from hiking short rolling hills in areas of New England near sea level, even though both are good.

    Anti-psychotics does the exact opposite of grow brain cells. It causes brain shrinkage. It’s the exact opposite of the right thing to do. They act as enablers. This is as bad as ancient rome prescribing lead poisoning to the upper middle class.

    Actually, part of the unethical experiments I was forced to endure involved many years of excruciating physical pain due to an untreated muscle spasm, which even when treated caused me a neurological pain syndrome that is hard to recover from and hard to shake off.

    I now, occasionally, have fake pain in certain spots, that my brain neurologically “creates” — or gets fooled into thinking is real — that is a result of me having spent 25 years in untreated excruciating pain. Fibromyalgia is what it’s sometimes called. However, most people with fibromyalgia were born with it whereas I had it programmed in me due to a horrendous experience that’s almost unheard of.

    Anyway, what I suffer from now are what could be described as pain hallucinations. E.g., the same pain that used to be in my upper back left shoulder blade area will remap itself to different parts of my body, which then will sometimes “feel” like they are in the same pain I used to have before.

    The moment I was informed it was a pain syndrome and not real injuries in those spots, I instantly started to “mind over matter” start to will the pain away and mentally take control over the pain and start training myself into mentally reducing it. That went on for awhile during a two year haitus from mountain climbing. And I improved the pain somewhat. Then I start regularly mountain climbing in New Hampshire again — and the mountain climbing itself DRASTICALLY reduced the pain.

    I can say, the mountain climbing stimulates your brain into “re-evaluating” what IS reality and what ISN’T reality. Re-evaluating the “pain” it was wrongly feeling into “not-pain.” But I think PTSD is the same way, and likely schizophrenia probably is too. As well as depression. Your brain can do re-processing of stuff. Re-programming of stuff. Somehow, it is stimulated to automatically do it much more in an environment involving outdoor exercise in nature. And I think, if it were researched better, we would learn why.

    My gut feeling tells me, your brain is sensitive to what you are breathing in, the olfactory sense, as well as the exercise and the exertion. But olfactory stimulation in the absence of exercise and exertion won’t work. I just know it’s the combination that does it. Also, mountain climbing involves exercise on un-even terrain — not the monotonous “same movement all the time” repetition of a gym treadmill, which also means your whole entire nervous system is being stimulated and exercised as you mountain climb. Forcing your brain to be “there.” Monotonous treadmill — your brain can fall asleep while you do that. It’s not the same.

    Thinking of evolution, our brains developed in environments where, when we trekked long distance through unfamiliar territories, our brains had to be on the look out for dangerous predators or other dangers. Schizophrenia and ptsd are diseases related to paranoia and the sensing of danger. Maybe our brains were developed so we “need” some amount of the conditions associated with real danger in our lives, or it’s like — I once heard about how people, if put in sensory deprivation chambers for too long, will start to hallucinate. Maybe modern day civilized life is, to some people, too much like a sensory deprivation chamber.

  • Well, I have a rather complex paper trail of evidence on my computer, from when I lived in this lower income black neighborhood of Dorchester, that backs up the contention that large corporations, wishing to make money off of illegally involuntary “Nazi style” medical experiments on marginalized people (e.g., the poor, or black people, etc.), will resort to using both the psychiatric system, crooked cops and mafia connected gangs to accomplish their aims.

    The idea is that, in a neighborhood that is poor enough, the mafia can get away with things and residents there can be intimidated into denying any knowledge or pretending to have witnessed nothing. You will have gangs engage in rather bizarre elaborate “conspiracies” or antics, outside in the neighborhood, playing minds games on and otherwise targetting and hazing a particular victim — often after they have been plied with drugs. Then same individuals will engineer some “incident” that results in police being called, police then go and take the person to a hospital, which may conduct any number of unethical experiments on them (for which they are getting bribed with corporate money, or else maybe some research institution like Harvard got the bribe), and then they will falsify records just right and accuse the victim of suffering “psychosis” (usually drug induced).

    The key thing is, if the victim later on tries to make any accusations, part of their story is going to include the rather fanciful antics of the “mafia” like gangs in their neighborhood, just prior to them being taken to the hospital where bizarre things were done to them. All neighbors will deny responsibility or knowledge, the victim is genuinely going to look like they really did hallucinate the whole thing into existence.

    It’s a very clever cover up.

    I was personally a would-be victim of such a scheme. However, I did a number of things that ensured some of the abuse wouldn’t get covered up. For instance, some of the “Hazing” involved death threats and other bizarre threatening stuff communicated to me online on my computer — which computer hackers from the online server (not in my apt) the communications were going through systematically kept deleting, leaving no evidence I’d been threatened and harassed. I started hitting print screen and saving to microsoft word, systematically capturing those threatening antics, e.g., the threats which would appear in my inbox, and then magically disappear via computer hacker, in a manner intended to make it look like they’d never been sent and I’d just imagined them. In one instance, I had a print screen of a particular folder obviously full of threatening emails — and a minute or two later, a print screen of the same folder, with all the threatening emails gone. And this was a folder where no one, not even me, can delete old messages, they automatically disappear after 30 days and not before. That — and a whole bunch of other things I documented as well — was enough to prove it.

    In my case, I was experimented on with pharmaceuticals that were not approved of by the FDA. Including — well, I believe the perpetrators have a successful cure for genital herpes they are covering up, in return for bribe money from Big Pharma. Just one example of the kind of corruption that is out there.

    But I do need to note. The threat to fraudulently diagnose victims of crimes “crazy” or with some fabricated mental health diagnosis in order to cover up crimes perpetrated by the mafia is very common. And endemic to psychiatry. Which, by now, is a discipline that networks with other medical industries.

    Actually, in my case, I believe some of the faked diagnoses of me, even while not very credible, were strategically clever enough so as to render my potential testimony against any numbers of criminals “not quite credible enough to indict them.” These criminals — who were mostly drug users doing what they had to do in order to party with cocaine and crystal meth safely — were later blackmailed and forced to submit to unethical nazi style medical experiments done on them, in the arena of computers, robotics and medicine. Testing out such devices on them as robotic rectums intended eventually for elderly incontinent.

    Again, use of the psychiatric system proved to be very advantageous for this kind of plot. The key thing was for medical doctors to tarnish me with bogus psych diagnoses making my testimony just questionable enough so that, if no one else came forward so as to back me up regarding my contentions that I was a victim of certain crimes, no one could be indicted on my testimony alone. And then third parties helped blackmail the perpetrators by waiting in the wings, threatening to come forward in a manner that might bolster my testimony, but agreeing not to do so, if the criminals submitted themselves for medical experiments.

    This is the kind of subtle and sophisticated criminal racketeering that goes on, using psychiatry. But, I mean, with psychiatry being leveraged for the purposes of organized crime in ways as elaborate as THIS, please, how can it possibly be a credible discipline with respect to actually trying to help people with their mental health?

    You simply cannot do good mental healthcare, when a huge portion of psychiatry has been distorted so as to make it useful for criminal racketeering.

  • Let me copy and paste a comment I made on Actress Ashley Judd’s facebook page. One of many comments explaining the benefits of outdoor exercise but I’ve done it lots and have to say, figuring out what exercise works best IS a science in and of itself. It is a cop out for the medical system to say “just exercise” without saying how.

    What exercise you do should be a whole entire field of study.

    But, it is also true that not everyone is the same. And I was thinking, why is it that I find — I am fair skinned white but partly Italian — that the mountain air really helps but lots of running water is important and high altitude mountains are important? And then I thought, if my ancestors tended to be prone to depression and anxiety UNLESS they lived in just the right environment, well that’s why they stayed in those colder harsher mountainous areas during 30-50-100 year periods where the weather on earth was very wet, and didn’t migrate to lower lying areas, which then get too dry during droughts so everyone who migrated to the wrong areas ended up dying.

    Just a thought. But it’s the type of thinking that would be useful to do in situations involving mental health. Another thing. I’ve also commented on the debate over whether there are ingrained gender differences. Corporations also want to pretend there are none, we are all the same, women who want to be “women” and not be “just like men” were brainwashed and need to be brainwashed back — an argument eerily similar to those who say homosexuals should just get over it via “conversion therapy.” But, when I thought about whether there really ARE ingrained gender differences or not, and I remembered how math works and all, my mathematical intuition tells me that a single population that lives in the same environment for a long enough time without mixing it up will develop increasingly ingrained gender differences IN THAT ENVIRONMENT (probability theory says that will be so given a small number of non-overlapping distinct sex genes free to ‘go their own way’ re: evolution and natural selection). But, there is no guarantee that the gender differences that develop in a population IN ONE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT will at all be the same as those that developed among humans living in a different environment. The way humans have migrated and interbred with people from completely different environments means, everyone is mixed up. We are less “standardized” now than at any other time in human history. Medicine ought to reflect that. Diversity does not mean we need to force everyone into the same standardized box. The opposite is true. Yet, the “magic of the free market” idea with economic centralization means, the more “diverse” our society becomes in terms of being homogenized, the more corporations just want to pretend everyone is standardized so as to facilitate their mass marketing to everyone.

    From my facebook post.

    “I have to ask, why would I just feel it that the mountain air — from high altitude mountains but not lower mountains, and they have to be wet and have a lot of running water that splashes lots — have positive mental health effects, especially depression and anxiety which COMPELS you to seek help to fix it? And women are more prone to it than men? And, go away from that environment, and you are more prone to depression and anxiety? I just remembered my meteorology class from high school. What happened to those of our ancestors eons ago? And their neighbors who did not survive? There were droughts, and there were wet periods, and the wet periods sometimes lasted longer than one or two or three generations. Long enough for people’s memories passed down from their ancestors to be weak. Tall mountains with certain altitudes will STILL have rain in the droughts. Those humans who moved to flatter areas with low hills during wet periods all DIED when there were droughts. Those who couldn’t live there because they got depressed — or at least the women got depressed and the older men did — they stayed in the mountain areas that were always going to stay wet. And survived. So, when I say, hiking in NH helped me so much with PTSD and even helped my (former) bronchitis, permanently, and that it was the air there, and the air in small hills down in Rhode Island is NOT the same and won’t work as well, isn’t it interesting that science could explain that? Also, if you are a man and in a bad area, you will want to avoid that depression and anxiety by getting lots of exercise and staying in good physical shape. So, in the drought, you can still get the hell out of there to better environments anyway despite not enough food. If you are a woman — better not stray too far from a hospitable environment. Consider it a very ingrained “memory” of the history of weather conditions. ** Outdoor exercise new hampshire mountains **”

  • I sort of think that the whole model corporations follow where it is all about making money and marketability is inherently anti-science.

    So long as they can figure out some way to rope people in to using their products and spending money on their products, they don’t care. Even if it’s a sledgehammer and this is the brain and neurosurgery we are talking about.

    It’s terrible to go study a drug on a general population when, in fact, there is a huge amount of biological diversity in the human race. With origins in hot areas of Africa for some, while others migrated north to very cold areas.

    If they really were serious about solving health problems, they would try to figure out ways to isolate and segregate and study sub populations of human beings, where they segregate out those who have the exact same brain characteristic — scientifically determined. And psychiatry, in its current state, is pathetically not a science, I would suspect.

    I have long been a fan of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, where they talk of the magic of the free market, and in some cases that works. But, with health care, well … see I kind of know what the problem is.

    There are people out there who are creative and who are scientific, and who have pride in their work. When it comes to health, if they ever REALLY tried to figure out how to work on the mind and on conditions like depression or anxiety and get it right, they will probably end up concluding that it is complicated. Each sub population they can isolate and figure out the problems of will need a different solution. It might not be what the company donating money for research is going to be able to make much money off of. But such scientists will continue such studies because they like being creative and smart and they have a sense of pride in their work that is OTHER THAN the “profit motive.”

    Especially when, actually, the “profit motive” is that of a corporation — which is economically centralized inasmuch as one corporation will produce one product that is meant to be distributed over a large area and serve a lot of people, with the more people buying it ensuring the bigger profits. That principle works excellently when the problem — as it’s been for most of human history — is making sure human beings and civilization has enough food to keep everyone alive and no famines.

    Food is food. We can all pretty much eat the same thing and stay alive. The “magic of the free market” works wonderfully when the goal is to get people a lot of food.

    With healthcare, science and nuance are what matters. Corporate Donations to academia stifles creativity and researchers who are there because they are scientists and have egos and care about creativity more than money hate it.

    Oh and that’s a bit of a problem with a certain brand of “feminism” promoted by corporate/academic interests, with rigid and self serving definitions of “gender equality” that involve “advancing women” who would rather be mothers and who are grudgingly doing it for the money solely in order to pay back exorbitant student loans for skyrocketing tuition rates. They don’t have the sense of pride in their work and desire for their work to be MORE than just the making of money. So Big Pharma loves them. They’ll live with the stultifying rules.

    Not politically correct, what I’m saying. It’s TRUE and I am not going to live in a society where damage is done by lying and pretending it isn’t true.

  • So there was an interest in “mothering the mother” amid the great society and then interest waned? What I heard about the great society was that this “welfare establishment” developed that became very interested in monopolizing federal funds for themselves, and I’m talking about employees and various corrupt profiteers attached to the welfare system sometimes more or less loosely.

    You ended up with mass incarceration which is feeds a hugely profitable prison industry which profits off of distinction. And, some of the housing projects out there are not much better than prisons. The problem with federal money is that it is so easy for corruption to develop. Before the great society welfare systems were administered by the states — and there was all sorts of corruption and abuse. It was very obvious too given how one state might vary from another depending on the political conditions in each. So the Feds step in but corruption is something that is not limited to the states, but it takes time to develop. It seems that it is only a matter of time before it will develop.

    Government has always been this way throughout history. Thing is, when individual states are more powerful, yes they are corrupt because there is huge variation from one state to another, and people exchange information. Good example is lead paint and childhood lead poisoning. In states with older housing stock and tight housing markets — eg real estate interests have potential to make lots of money off new construction, those states have distorted the science somewhat in order to falsely blame lead poisoning on lead paint, and mandated very expensive deleading procedures dangerous to children but which helps to prop up the price of new construction painted with non lead based paint. Other states without the same market and corresponding political conditions actually ban some of those procedures because studies have found time and time again they not only do not protect against lead poisoning but often cause it.

    So if you look at the variation from one state to the other between lead paint laws, and what the state “experts” claim the truth is, it is readily obvious there is serious amount of corruption. The temptation is towards the federal government applying a uniform code. When it does so, the uniformity of the policy makes it much harder to see how it might be influenced by corruption. You’d have to compare the USA to Mexico, Canada, or Europe to see it. And I think corruption gets worse always when it is the least noticeable. With regard to lead paint laws, I do know the truth is slowly prevailing and various states feel compelled to recognize reality. Partly because various parties can point out the differences between each state and in some cases force entrenched interests to cave.

    I believe the European healthcare system is less corrupt than the USA because, though they are all government run in Europe, each different country has its own system, and each country is right next to one another, information is shared from one country to another, and reality or the truth has an easier way of influencing policy. The USA is isolated from the rest of the world with power centralized in Washington.

  • But who, in the psychiatric profession, are ever going to have the guts to get their hands dirty by labeling — and possibly provoking — individuals who might be obvious to people as sociopathic or sick people? One thing you can’t expect of upper middle class people who spent tons of money on advanced degrees is for them to get their hands dirty in any way. The default human tendency, when confronted with evil, is always to not want to get involved. That speaks to an inherent limitation psychiatry has, and always will have.

  • To drive home my point: for him to label his father as a sick person IS labeling — but it is not “wrong” because it is TRUE his father is a sick and sociopathic bad person who abuses and hurts other people. The labeling that is being criticized here is a mislabeling of victims of abuse as not having been abused but instead having something wrong with them — which is wrong because it is inherently inaccurate and also can trap the victims in continued abusive situations. Labeling is bad when it is inherently dishonest and enables abuse — but, when someone is a sick sociopathic person, nothing works more effectively to protect others from their abuse than to have the guts to label them as such.

  • If his father is a bad person who engages in psychological abuse, who lacks a consciense and lacks normal emotions of empathy towards others, popular culture generally labels such people as sociopaths, or criminally insane, and it is a valid label.

    A label such as that, I want to note, is applied to people who have a pattern of abuse towards others, a pattern of hurting other people, and that’s when they are labeled criminally insane or sociopathic.

    Isn’t it interesting how the medical community wants to wipe away all “stigma” from mental illness — and make very clear that mental illness is not a label that is to be applied to people who are bad people? The words “sick” or “criminally insane” are words the medical profession shies away from.

    Instead, they want to label symptoms a person experiences as mental illness, symptoms which are often induced in people when they are the recipients (but not perpetrators) of abusive behavior, and then first they want to erase all stigma: no this doesn’t mean the subject is bad. But, at the same time, they will jump through hoops going out of their way to avoid ANY kind of judgement regarding the CAUSE of such symptoms that could implicate a member of the subject’s family or immediate social group as having engaging in any kind of abusive behavior, in favor of asserting that such symptoms spontaneously arose in the individual because something is medically wrong with them, and therefore they are required to use the paid, expensive, professional services of a doctor, and all those pricey drugs, for the rest of their life.

    This is nothing other than an inherent built-in bias of a medical profession that needs to make money. Go get training for any kind of sales job, and you will have it drilled into your head countless times just how drastically making any kind of value judgments perceived offensive to some people can cut into your bottom line and reduce your market share.

    While therapists are most likely individuals voluntarily choose to seek out, psychiatrists are professionals most likely to receive patients who have been turned into them by family members. How quickly and drastically would the psychiatric profession be financially decimated if psychiatrists admitted that abusive environments can cause symptoms of mental illness, or that mental illnesses can be cured by the right sort of socially based therapeutic environment?

    Doing so gets into the tricky area of possibly making some sort of judgment (direct or implied) regarding the family members of the mentally ill, who are the ones who pressure mentally ill people into seeking treatment.

    The best way for psychiatry to increase it’s market share is to systematically diagnose indiviuals with having something wrong with them — e.g., chemical imbalances — while also scoffing at any claims by them that they were abused or mistreated by family members, and chaulking up such claims to their “imaginations” which are “tarnished” by the “illness.”

    Doing so not only prevents the problem of psychiatrists offending the very family members whose cooperation they need to keep patients, but also gives family members an incentive to use the psychiatric system, to help them absolve them of any kind of abusive implications.

    Furthermore, nothing works better to keep a patient trapped in the mental health system for life, than to systematically enable abusers whose behavior may well be causing symptoms — and there is a lot of money to be made from a model of psychiatry that causes poor long term outcomes. And allying with bad or abusive people against victims of such behavior is hugely in the financial interests of the psychiatric profession.

    So, in my opinion, it is actually important to label an abusive person an abusive person — and labeling someone abusive when it is obvious they are is the sort of common sense thing which the medical profession seems notoriously willing to cop out on, in favor of labeling victims as only imagining abuse and having something “inherently wrong” with them — e.g., something medicalizeable.