Saturday, July 24, 2021

Comments by l_e_cox

Showing 100 of 621 comments. Show all.

  • My best understanding of it is that it consists of a loose affiliation of people with criminal minds. Though it’s woo-woo to say this: Off-world influence has also been observed.

    Their only real power is their willingness to perform criminal acts (starting with their current favorite – character assassination) to get what they want. In the past it was thought that they mostly indulged in blackmail, and that may still be true. The stories are pretty grim. But we all know that people really do do this to each other.

  • Well, yes. The example was the first one I thought of. And of course we don’t think of mental health interventions as happening in prisons, normally. But they do, and the psychopaths there (not all prisoners are psychopaths by any means!) will either accept therapy in the hopes they can get an early release, or refuse therapy. But in any case, they won’t make a decision that makes sense, just like their decision to commit a crime didn’t make sense. And that’s my only point; that’s the dilemma.

    Forcing mental health treatment on someone never works for the person it is forced on. But it might “work” for society. So the real problem comes when the person gets arrested and is forced by society to live in prison. Would any mental health intervention actually work under those conditions? I have heard of various training programs working in prison, but it is not an appropriate setting for helping someone to be happy.

  • But in the field of “mental health” we know what the pat answer to this is, and why involuntary treatment is allowed by law in many places, if only for a limited period of time.

    Of course, as people in this community expected, those laws opened a Pandora’s Box of real and potential abuses.

    We have a real dilemma here, in extreme cases. Whereas, in many cases it would be much wiser to let the patient (“client”) decide, there are a few that would not be able to do this.

    In some cases, those extreme cases will involve violence that would justify physical restraint and arrest. However, in other cases, this may not be how it works out. A case that comes to mind was related by Stanton E. Samenow in one of his few lectures posted on Youtube. A crying baby is found on the ground outside an apartment building. (I forget if it was hurt) Locating the old lady who was “taking care” of the child, she asserted that the child wandered out to the balcony and fell off before she could stop it. But further investigation proved that in fact the woman “threw” the baby off the balcony in some sort of fit of anger. In asking such a person how they wished to be treated, she would maintain that there was absolutely nothing wrong with her. This is an extreme case, but they are not that uncommon. So this is a big dilemma in the field of mental health.

  • If you have access to the internet, keep looking around on it. I’m told it is inappropriate for me to suggest the specific groups that I favor on this blog, but search for people who just want to help other people and see if you can find a person or group who you might feel comfortable with. It probably won’t be part of the “mental health” system. That system seems to be quite broken at this point.

  • This looks to me like another great example of thumb-twiddlng. Not that the people who write articles in the journal Psychiatric Services care what I think!

    It’s not that I’m not curious about what people who are prescribed meds like this actually do with them. For that matter, I am also very interested in what people who are NOT prescribed these meds do with them! But the point is that here we are pushing up against the beginnings of a police state, and we are worried about how people take their meds?

    The pro-tyranny folks want to figure out how to monitor everybody 24/7, then make not taking your meds an actual crime so they can arrest practically anyone they want at any time.

    And what do the pro-social justice folks want? That’s not quite clear to me. Equal tyranny for all? It seems strange to me that they aren’t doubling down on the atrocious human rights violations we still see in the field of mental health (and now the field of public health?) and blowing the whistle on it! Who’s side are they on, anyway?

  • Yes, I believe it is very probable there is a hierarchy involved. That is what I was told was found. The secrecy of it makes it difficult to uncover.

    There have been satiric videos made of news anchors or politicians across the nation or the planet all using the same words to convey the same message. So these sorts of activities are being coordinated through some central authority.

  • We have always had difficulty finding physical evidence for things that people want to keep hidden from us!

    But I have looked at the accounts of Svali and many others, the early work of Pie and Mash Films in the UK, and references to studies done on the subject, and it seems pretty real to me.

    I am guessing you don’t believe in spiritual existence, reincarnation, ghosts or anything like that, either?

  • Oh – medical model! It’s in the title of the article! Sorry.

    I have different experiences with models. I used to build them for fun when I was a kid.

    Strictly speaking, a “model” is a mathematical approximation of a physical system used for predicting the behavior of the system.

    I don’t think psychiatrists are very good mathematicians, though. And of course, the guys in charge are not to be trusted no matter what “model” you give them to work with. They can (and have) screwed up a Spirit-Mind-Body model! And that’s one of the best ones we have.

    I think models have their place. But they are useless in the hands of most psychiatrists.

  • It is good to see some dissent in academia on various clinical habits, such as the use of CHR-P.

    Will it have any real effect on practice, though?

    How many in the general public still believe in “chemical imbalance?” The academic world has moved on, but drug company marketing campaigns had the desired effect.

    The whole idea of screenings to identify “at risk” individuals might work for actual metabolic diseases, but in the field of “mental health” they only serve the industry by increasing their list of potential victims.

    The key point remains: Other than making money, they don’t know what they’re doing.

  • Those who have been following these issues are well aware of the pressure put on journalists – and on the general public through the media – to support the message of organized psychiatry.

    The most interesting fact I found in this article was that the Carter Center had put together a “press kit” for writers in the field of “behavioral health.” Boy does the document reek (I found a copy online and went through it) of “we are the experts so you better listen to us.”

    That’s the direction this world is heading right now. We’ve given up on the “expertise” of the democratic process and replaced it with tyranny by “experts” (technocracy). But without any democratizing feedback loop, the people never get to push back with “These ideas don’t work!” And even if all our structural systems for checks and balances were perfect, you’d still need a baseline level of sanity in society for them to work. This is currently lacking.

  • Saying that Braun was inept (as are most psychiatrists) and saying that his ideas and findings were totally incorrect are two different things. There have been many many people who have looked into SRA or reported experiencing it. You can always expect some people will try to ride any bandwagon that comes along. But all of them? There are too many who have looked into this and found evidence for it. It is, however, not strongly supported as a real thing, and there are a lot of people trying to make some person or group look bad who throw around the term too carelessly.

  • I don’t think the most important “mental illnesses” (or whatever we want to call them) have adaptive value. I don’t believe in that line of thinking. Does a broken arm have adaptive value? Something happened and you broke your arm! Get it fixed up so it can heal! That’s how I look at the more important mental problems.

    Some behaviors that are basically normal are condemned by the truly sick as being “mental illnesses.” I think that’s where the real problem lies for most people who get diagnosed as “mentally ill.”

    But I reject the premises of “evolutionary psychology” and wish psychologists would start studying the psyche instead of finding new and creative ways to avoid studying it.

  • This story comes through loud and clear.

    Is this guy “mentally ill?” How would YOU react to those experiences? He survived to speak honestly about what happened. I’d say he is one of the saner ones.

    The sociopathic co-worker, the abusive hospital attendants and psychiatrists. Is this our “normal?” Those people, if anything, had bigger mental health problems. Why weren’t they the patients and Mr. Brown their keeper? Could it be this is a planet that has been turned on its head? Where good works and honesty are looked down on, and rape and murder applauded? It seems so, sometimes. Are those of us lucky or sane enough to have calm productive lives a minority on this planet? Sometimes I wonder. In any case, this story gives us some idea of how far we have to go.

    I like his admonition: “The best drug that helped me was understanding. That’s the best drug.”

  • I hate to support the work of people who so clearly do not understand the basics of their subject. But if we can find some way to cancel the use of antidepressants it would be worth it.

    To take a wild guess, I would think most severe depressive episodes are triggered by severe physical or emotional pain, or some combination of the two. And this pain would most likely be coming from a psychopath in the environment, or in some cases an environmental poison or contaminant.

    Remove the physical or psychological contamination, provide adequate nutrition and rest, and the depression should subside. Then further work can be done to handle the situation more permanently.

    To describe depression as an adaptive response consisting of “analytical rumination” is a bizarre and unnecessary complication. But if a study will demonstrate that drugs make it worse, go for it!

  • I am a bit aghast at the lack of curiosity, or intellectual reach, displayed by so many who have an academic background. It is certainly not in the tradition of classic intellectualism. Though there has always been, perhaps, a sort of exclusivity or “we’re smarter than you” slant in the academic world.

    Academically trained people who still want their information spoon fed to them will of course only get the information that the person holding the spoon wants them to have. We expect this among the general public, but college-educated people seem just as weak on this point, if not worse!

    If this is the legacy of the modern university, then that institution has failed us. I have held this view for at least 40 years. Though occasionally a shining light walks out of college, most graduates seem to be anything but shining to me. And lo and behold! We see yet again the telltale fingerprints of psychology and its dogmas.

  • This message needs to get out as often and as widely as possible. I’m glad to see others working on this.

    I am concerned, however, that so many people will think: “but these drugs are my only option. I use them or I suffer even worse.” People are so used to taking drugs for everything.

    So we must also do what we can to forward the message that drugs are not the way to solve most problems, particularly psychological ones, as preachy as that may sound to people. Then, we need to come up with the other ways.

  • This little summary doesn’t get into what Cameron actually did to people. It was pretty awful! We can think of this as just the excesses of one warped mind. But remember: He was operating in the field of mental “health!” And his colleagues did nothing (that I know of) to stop him. Similar to the original Mengele. It requires a new level of vigilance to guard against such people and their atrocities.

  • rebel, I appreciate the extent of your faith. But I am concerned that the situation we find ourselves in on Earth could last long enough (if not forever) to crush so many of us down that no surviving desire for freedom would be strong enough to be effective.

    In my world and in my group there is an urgency to the situation. We look back at the history of civilizations and we see a long spiritual (not always material) decline. And when we trace this trend forward, it seems to end in what might be called “permanent spiritual death.” We don’t want that for ourselves, our friends or loved ones, so we work with what we have learned so far to confer a sort of immunity to this fate on as many people as are willing to try. It is not a perfect answer but we hope it will result in an ultimate escape and return to freedom.

  • I have words that “know the mind and the body” as well as what is looking at and talking about the mind.

    The only reason “we” don’t have these words and concepts is because we have been told they don’t exist. But they do; we have simply been lied to.

    Some may not agree that those words and concepts are useful or helpful, but until we know that they exist, we can’t have that conversation.

  • I am somewhat familiar with Mel K, but not her guest.

    I am also familiar with Simon Parkes, and many various others. Like Simon and a few others, I believe ETs are involved in the background. I think it is unwise to push against the Catholic Church just because people need some sort of church in their lives, and many are still Catholic.

    These highly-detailed analyses based on various quotes and excerpts and historic details don’t seem quite right to me, but these people are good-hearted and can see what is obvious. There ARE connections between many different groups and businesses. And while it is difficult for me to listen to some of the religious terminology used here, I have no doubt there is a lot of truth in what they are saying.

  • It is always encouraging to see academics discover something that seems true to me, while at the same time discouraging to see them cling to assumptions that are (to me) obviously false.

    It is true that this is just a correlative study. To test more strongly for causation, you would have to request (force?) the group to change their reading habits for a period of time, and measure them before and after. Do I have better “attributional complexity” because I have read more literary fiction, or did that trait attract me more strongly to literary fiction? In the “modern” world of psychology, we do need to recognize the fact that personality traits can be prior to this-life habits.

    Though the authors insist on referring to “evolutionary psychology,” a subject I find singularly useless, I can understand the attractiveness of it, for it furnishes a plethora of superficial explanations. Their ambition to “help society flourish” is intriguing in its uniqueness. Who in these difficult times ever expresses this sentiment? I wish them luck in achieving it!

  • It is always amazing for me to hear from people – often fluent writers – about what life is like in that world. I have never lived there this life.

    My argument against “mental health” drugs has always been stark and didactic: The mind is not part of the body, so how can you make the mind “healthy” by medicating the body? It is a scientific impossibility (assuming you agree with my science). The drugs are doing things to your body. They can make it feel better, or make it feel worse. And so you react mentally to how your body is changing. And that is all that is happening.

    But when someone who has actually been through this tells their story, the situation becomes more nuanced. Certain drugs can make the mind “feel better.” We are very familiar with many of them, as the most popular are legal for casual use. With psych meds, it is not always blatantly obvious that someone is addicted to them, although most who have attempted withdrawal know this is usually the case. And so, they become not only a route to a possible calmness, but also a trap.

    On top of this, there are many things that can happen in life that can separate a person from real mental health treatments, as well as from the feeling of being mentally healthy. I experienced both last year. Things could get so bad that no alternative treatments or teachings will be allowed (or affordable). And that would be full-blown slavery. We are closer to this than most of us think.

    In some ways I feel similar to this writer. I am in a mental, emotional and intellectual quandary. Though I know there is a way out of this quandary, I don’t know if I can succeed to do it. Thus I feel like I’m in a better place than many facing these challenges. But not by much! I am hoping that somehow our efforts will inspire more people to refuse the drugs. That would be a great first step! But it would only be a first step.

  • The people who live by this aphorism force themselves out of their own comfort zones in order to learn a new song, gain a new skill or hone some ability. They might have help from a coach, but they don’t want to be forced to do it any more than anyone else.

    Normally such people have a place where they can be very comfortable, then another place where they work to challenge themselves. They are actually maintaining a balance, but they talk up the side that seems harder to do.

    For a person who is never comfortable, this makes no sense.

    But I know a lot of people who live by this aphorism, so there is a workability to it, when properly balanced.

  • I would welcome more articles on this subject!

    I am perturbed, though, by the authors’ withdrawal into the safe space of present time environment when they should be pushing harder on the work begun by the psychoanalysis people.

    There is something right about both of these “paradigms.” Some people who experience what some call “mental illness” do feel, subjectively, that there is something wrong with them. When you go to the extreme of the psychopath, this becomes more obvious (though the psychopath is likely to consider himself the sanest person in the world). Also, the environment does expose us to many stresses that can overwhelm us to various degrees that have as much to do with physiological limitations as they have to do with “mental health.”

    The possibility that both Freud and Jung were onto something should not be overlooked. Did they fail because they were wrong, or because they didn’t look far enough or hard enough into the human mind? We know now how far the human mind can extend. Someone should be talking about it, and someone in academia (besides Jim Tucker’s group) should be investigating it. There IS more to learn about this, you know!

  • I think some Buddhist practices are closer to qualifying as “treatments” than something like “meditation” “mindfulness” or “yoga.” Especially when they are done under the supervision of a “master.”

    But of course, my objection to articles like these is that they stop at the level of environment (which could be called the source of “triggers”) and fail to go beyond that to discover what is being triggered by all those triggers, and what to do about that.

  • In my circles, these forms of censorship are well-known and considered very common. But in this case, the drug companies are the obvious bad actors, while in other cases this connection is not so easy to make.

    A few have been wise enough to step back and ask: More generally, what does drug treatment do to a person? And the usual answer is: It makes that person totally dependent on those drugs, and thus a kind of slave to them. Then when you look out across the full range of modern censorship, you see all of it as an attempt to replace free thought and action with a dependence on experts and instructions from authorities.

    I believe this points to a broader answer concerning why this censorship exists and why it has recently become so brazen and irrational: There is some group (or collection of individuals) on this planet that is terrified of free thought and freedom of action. And they are trying to run the show. This seems to be the actual situation.

  • Every aphorism has its place.

    “A penny saved is a penny earned.” They have been around a long time, and we occasionally come up with new ones.

    These sayings can always be misused and probably always will be. But there is usually some truth in them or they wouldn’t stick.

    To tell someone who is constantly suffering, “you need to get out of your comfort zone” would be ridiculous. You tell that to people who are more or less obviously so attracted to complacency that they are becoming useless to society, or at least to themselves.

    We could carefully define “success” (attainment of a desired outcome) or “comfort zone” (a level of functioning that is easy and familiar) but would that assist in resolving the problem of the misapplication of this and many other bits of popular advice?

    Most people who experience a “normal” amount of striving in life – someone who is competitive or seeking to constantly improve a skill or a product – knows and lives with this aphorism every day. If they are a good person, they wouldn’t rub it in to someone who is less ambitious, but might do that to a constant complainer. But that would leave out all the other “truths” that such people live by, such as the fact that we determine our own emotions and many of our own outcomes.

    I think the intention of the advisor is more important than the exact advice. And if someone feels harassed by a certain bit of advice, it might be wise to take a look at WHO keeps pushing this at you even though it is obviously not working for you.

    Of course, the truly emotionally unwell are also capable of complaining about advice. So the tables can be turned. In the end, there is no substitute for a good set of life skills and the self-confidence that goes with using them effectively.

  • I have taken so few drugs in my life that it is hard for me to imagine how people survive the kind of treatments that you describe. I can only imagine that you are a strong being.

    If one defines “mental illness” rather loosely, then yes they do definitely exist. The major one, overlooked in the DSM, is Psychiatrist Disorder. Its major symptoms include: Making up disorders to label other people with in order to hide your own, and pretending to be a doctor while actually harming patients.

    We could all do with improved mental health. But if we got that, we would probably figure out how to overturn the corrupt ones trying to control the current system. So, they pretend, but in fact, it’s the last thing they are interested in.

  • I thought this was going to be an article about how to use science to test a hypothesis (or tell if a drug works). It spent very little time discussing that subject, instead focusing of the vagaries of testing drugs. One reason these problems exist, of course, is because the subjects you are testing are humans, and science – a product of human activity – does not even understand humans that well. Thus the physical sciences and engineering tend to be much more successful using the scientific method than do Medicine and the social sciences (like psychology, economics).

    What you should be able to test for in terms of drug reactions is what changes the drug makes to the body. This would keep the tests in the realm of the objective. To test for the suppression or relief of subjective symptoms is a whole new ballgame.

    I think that for any major leaps forward to be made in the physical or the social sciences, a better understanding of how life works will have to be achieved.

    Sorry to be pedantic, but the fact is that the actual healing agent in biology is Spirit. If Spirit decides to heal, then healing will occur, and the experimental subject will normally report an improvement. And if Spirit decides to stay sick, then the subject won’t get better. This is the power of the placebo, and it could be argued that all those RCTs that use placebos have actually proven the healing power of Spirit!

    But more importantly, if life were better understood, doctors and Big Pharma would be forced to admit that their drugs should take a back seat to therapies that address Spirit more directly. A great way to sober up a drunk is to give him a Locational. And if the real cure for psychosis was to “make it difficult for the patient to focus on the psychotic ideation” then a Locational should also work to treat psychotics! Yet, anyone could be trained to help someone in this way, so where’s the profit in it?

    Some would argue that all this really tells us is that help and greed are incompatible. Perhaps science (if it is meant to help) is also incompatible with greed (profit motive). I suppose this was the original idea behind having so much government-sponsored research. But now that the corporate world has nearly captured government and academia, how do we move forward?

    Some of the most important hypotheses of the last century remained untested by science due to the suppressive influence of vested interests. There is no field where this is more evident than Mental Health, with Medicine running close behind. How can we shake these vultures loose and move forward?

  • The article is interesting. I didn’t read the original paper.

    In the context of a website like this, you’re going to have some who will simply assert, “this whole idea is a bunch of BS.” While others will be more willing to explore the nuances a bit, though not with an attitude much more favorable than sarcasm.

    That clinicians still take this whole subject seriously speaks first to the intellectual limitations of their educations and second to their need to have a set of medical-sounding categories for billing purposes.

    The fact remains (as far as I am aware) that the most common way this whole problem starts is when a person approaches a practitioner and says, “doctor I need your help,” or words to that effect.

    A very common variation on this theme is when a friend, family member or government employee approaches the practitioner, rather than the actual patient, and says, “doctor, I need your help with (fill in the blank).”

    The practitioner then starts the process by hearing a story, either from the patient or someone who knows the patient. This story may or may not be factual, but if the patient is telling the story, the practitioner can at least check certain points of the story against direct observation. At that point the practitioner can ask, “what should I do about this?” This is supposedly where the technical data really kicks in and a nosology (list of illnesses) should come in handy. But, the fact is, life often doesn’t work that way.

    I could continue to draw out this whole process, but beyond my own very limited clinical experience, I am really not qualified to do that.

    I do want to note what discussions like this tend to miss:

    1) Intentions. Does the patient really need help, or are they just in need of some attention? Is the “friend” really interested in getting help for the patient, or really only wants to get rid of them?

    2) Psychopathology. Is this person having trouble because of a crazy person in their environment? (This goes for physical injuries, not just emotional problems.) The patient may be unaware that they are connected to someone who is crazy, or may be afraid of “telling” on them. This is a very important missing step, the neglect of which often causes much harm.

    3) Complexities. A practitioner who hopes to narrow every patient down to one “illness” and one treatment is on a losing path before they even start. Chances are very high that the situation is more complex than that. There could be a whole causal chain that could lead back to basics like lack of sleep, poor nutrition, illiteracy, an untreated physical problem, fighting parents, sexual abuse, or some combination of many different situations. The person, in coming into a clinical setting, may temporarily escape the turbulence in their life, but when released go back and “get sick” again.

    In the light of the above points, particularly when addressing behavioral and emotional situations in a person’s life, the concept of a DSM becomes almost laughable. It gives someone like me the distinct impression that the whole group of professions who use the DSM either don’t know what they are doing, really don’t care, or aren’t very bright. I challenge the “mental health system” to prove me wrong!

  • It’s so agonizing to see the snail-pace progress even in people who seem to really want to help others.

    This is because they are being held back (sometimes quite forcibly) by people in those professions and in society who really want to harm others.

    When those restraints are removed, healers begin to look at more workable models, like body-mind-spirit.

    Though I can commend people like Dr. Rush for their work and good intentions, the key to their problems lies in the work of their own colleagues. So they really need to free up their thinking and then just look around more broadly in their own family of disciplines to begin to discover what’s really going on.

  • Though this paper apparently conveys a robust criticism of one of our more protected professions, it seems more like a game of kids throwing rocks at each other than a serious scholarly work.

    In 1980 my psychologist warned me about psychiatry. From that and other data I can assume that the two fields have been in a state of civil war for some time now. To trace back the dehumanization of psychiatry to the Reagan era is totally preposterous. How about the two world wars? Psychiatry was deeply involved in both of them!

    By believing the lie that “Presently, the major causes of mental illness are unknown” the paper leads the reader into believing that we will have to invest yet millions more of tax dollars into research that will help no one except maybe some vested interest’s bottom line.

    For me, this has been the great tragedy of my lifetime. That great strides WERE made in these fields, but were ignored because they threatened vested interests. That was the most obvious evidence that the “mental health system” was constructed for political purposes, and not to help anyone or solve any problems. Since the system became better-funded in the 1960s, societal problems have only been getting worse. Looks a lot more like a protection racket to me!

    Even most readers of this website don’t have any clue that the problem of mental health has largely been solved. Well, I’m not going to be the one to force the solutions down anyone’s throat, but to continue to act like they don’t even exist seems at best a bit negligent. At some point we should get to the point of realizing that some good work has been done on this and is worth discussing. How much longer do you all want to play this game of blind man’s bluff?

  • I found this prose nearly impossible to read.

    The concepts involved here are quite confusing and I think misguided.

    Groups that have been targeted for extermination (to put it bluntly) do face more extreme issues than many of us do. But the fact is, we have all been targeted for extermination.

    So the same basic remedies apply across the planet, to all people, though with certain groups more emphasis might have to be placed on certain aspects of the remediation process.

    The first step for any individual or group is to identify and disconnect from any psychopath who has a significant influence in your life. Although it has been argued that “systems” can become psychopathic (thus, “systemic racism”) there has never been sufficient attention placed on the psychopaths that may be operating or perpetuating such systems. They are the correct targets, not “systems.”

    This can be a difficult step, as psychopaths are masters at hiding themselves. But it is a very crucial step. If any significant psychopathic influence is left in place, it will work very actively to continue the suppression. And if the target individual or group begins to improve and assert itself, this could be met by an increased level of violence from the psychopath.

    Once that toxic connection is handled, these “frameworks” (I have more software training than psych training; to me the term refers to computer software!) can possibly be applied successfully, along with attention to various individual issues that may remain.

    The psychopath has been the “elephant in the room” for decades now! Let’s put some attention on handling that aspect of the problem!

  • The title suggested to me that the point of the study would be that everyone should have equal rights to have their human rights abused by a psychiatrist.

    Maybe African psychiatrists don’t go around abusing their patients like American ones do, but still, is this the real answer to the problems some people have at keeping their jobs? Why don’t more psychiatrists have more problems keeping their jobs? I would guess most of them have severe mental illness.

    Truth is, no employer wants to deal with an employee that is always having problems. It would be great if there were more effective treatments for such people, because then they could more easily hold a job. Barring that, the only effective handling I have seen has been to create some sort of community-based program where people can go and contribute at their ability level and get some sort of recompense so they are seen as useful community members. The general public can also be trained to deal with these problems in a more understanding way.

    The tragedy, of course, is that there ARE more effective treatments for people with problems. They just aren’t normally provided by psychiatrists.

  • It is true. The brain and every internal part of the body deserves to be protected and nurtured, not exposed to harsh chemicals or otherwise abused. If the brain – any body part – has a problem, we can possibly prop it up temporarily with nutrients or sleep or even drugs, but it is ultimately Spirit that will put things right, and we should never forget that.

  • I have seen very spiritual people refer to “brain” when they mean mind. For proper understanding, I think it is important to remember that “the brain is the physiological organ which allows the mind to connect to the body.” We can be sloppy with words if we understand this clearly. It’s important to my understanding of people and of life. Of course, each must develop their own understanding of these things.

  • It is common to think of the fear response as “necessary for survival.” But even in animals, I have seen the fear response paralyze them when they should run. My view is that fear is debilitating. In humans, this is even more obvious. You see a spider, a snake, an angry dog, whatever… you can get a fear reaction or you can know exactly what you need to do to stay healthy and happy in that particular situation and just do it. No fear involved.

    I think someone is selling us fear as necessary when it really isn’t. “Evolution” can explain it, but very poorly, particularly when you take Spirit into account.

    That said, trauma therapy is about trauma. It might often have to do with fear, but not necessarily. It could be from a head injury from sports or something. You’d expect fear to be a part of most incidents that result in emotional trauma. But there could be much more than just that involved as well.

  • I totally missed this when it came out.. going through some stuff of my own at the time. It is a very long article. I didn’t read all of it.

    In the context of more recent discussions (July 2021), it might seem odd, or even misguided, that appearing on a TV show such as this could result in a significant therapeutic change. But it is more or less obvious from this article that this is in fact possible.

    Should this be the new normal for our mental health care system? I must say, it sounds like these shows had a better batting average for positive results than does the conventional system! But from this experience, is it possible to determine which factors were the most important to providing a positive outcome? I don’t think it is. There was a good deal of focus, though, on the role played by the trained psychotherapist. And I think that focus is appropriate.

    This article was thorough enough to provide what amounted to some actual case studies. And what came up over and over what that there was a mental/emotional component to what was going on with these people, and when it was uncovered, they improved. In other words, the makeover itself might not have been enough. I believe these anecdotal examples support my contention that there is more than just an “oppressive system” contributing to common mental health issues; there are also real mental mechanisms at work. And getting “stuck in a past loss” is one of the more common.

    While far from conclusive proof that it will take more than UBI or a utopian level of equity and inclusiveness to make everyone well and happy, I think this article demonstrates that we need to include the role of mental mechanisms, not just social constructs, in attaining mental wellness.

  • I have never encountered these terms and concepts before. It is all part of the “disabilities rights” movement, I guess. In my area (California) this movement has resulted in things like ramps next to stairways, curb cuts at crosswalks, sounds emitting from traffic signals, seating areas on public transit that must be yielded to disabled people, etc.

    This all seems like a good thing. But I am concerned about where this could lead us in the hands of people who don’t really understand the mind and its problems, or just want to “include” as many people as possible on their list of potential victims.

    Who would be the most “psychosocially disabled” person you could think of? For me, it would be the person who compulsively lies, cheats, steals, and wishes harm on others, the psychopath. He might already be incarcerated in jail, or he might be roaming free, being a psychiatrist or doing some other similar job. Don’t we have to draw a line somewhere on the subject of inclusion? We don’t need psychopaths running the show on this planet, and many would maintain that they already are.

    This study concerns the entire planet. And this planet (if I can believe the stories and images I am presented by a group like Human Rights Watch) is in very poor shape! In “backwards” countries, some people who are seen as “unmanageable” by their families or communities are held prisoner in their houses or in “healing centers” or in places like jails. They are being restrained without due process. We see this happening in a more hidden way in “developed” countries where psych hospitals (or even emergency wards in medical hospitals) are also used to restrain “unmanageable” people without due process. This is clearly wrong-headed, as when most of these people are released from their restraints, they feel better and do reasonably well. However, the narrative never seems to take the turn that I might expect it to take: So, what was wrong with the “normal” people who thought their only choice was to imprison the “abnormal” people? Is someone going around telling people that if they can convince themselves that a family member is psychosocially disabled, they then can have that person as a slave?

    I am concentrating on the ambiguities in this subject because I am concerned where it has taken us (so far) here in the United States. The cry for “inclusion” has led to police standing by while rioters loot local businesses, and certain people in positions of power trying to tell me I have no right to speak or be heard because I am too “white.” We cannot be so inclusive and so tolerant that it results in the insane running the show!

  • rebel, I don’t know enough about eyes and drugs to add or subtract anything from your comment.

    But I know that if you want someone to become more awake and more alive, you should try to keep them as awake and aware as possible, then as they run into the mental barriers that tend to shut them down, they will be that much more able to “punch through” those barriers.

    From what I know, I can’t tell others to not try this. But I do really urge practitioners to figure out what they are really doing with people by inducing REM. I know it has to go way beyond mere brain function.

  • I am always happy to hear about a non-drug mental therapy that works.

    However, the theory behind this therapy is brain-based which my training tells me is misguided.

    Additionally, the mention of REM and getting the eyes to follow a moving object makes it more or less clear that a hypnotic state may be induced by this therapy, and my training tells me that this can be dangerous for the patient.

    If the theory of this therapy were re-worked along more modern Spirit-based principles, I think it would become better understood, and fall into its proper place alongside other non-drug therapies. We already know that “talk” (or cognitive) therapy has some effectiveness, and it is only by the longest stretch that we can relate those gains to brain function. It should be obvious to those who don’t have their heads buried that something else is at work here, and that something else is Spirit, the actual causal source in this universe.

  • A man with my last name has made a serious error!

    My understanding is that the mental health system tends to cause homelessness by rendering people less able to take care of themselves as they grow up (or after they start on drugs). Thus, one major target in the struggle to reduce homelessness should be the mental health system!

    If you want to make homelessness illegal, that would force the homeless into the prison system. But it violates basic human rights to force people into the mental health system. We all know this. In addition, many people in the prison system need help with their mental health as well, but the current system cannot provide this help, as it is not really designed to help anyone, but only punish them. Both systems function for similar purposes, but it is, perhaps, easier to get someone committed then it is to get them arrested, tried and convicted.

  • This article by this young student from India is a good synopsis of what continues to be wrong with this “profession.” None of this should be news to us.

    The younger generation still wants to get this right. This young woman plans to study criminal (forensic) psychology. And I know another woman here in California about the same age who also wants to study this subject. I hope they know what they are getting into! This is the legacy of Robert Hare, Stanton Samenow, and some more recent others. It is a rough and unsettling subject. The focus is on psychopathy, as it rightly should be, I suppose. And while I think these people are on the right track, their intellectual boundaries make attaining their goal more difficult, if not hopeless.

    I recently saw sociopathy defined as learned psychopathy. By implication, the sociopath could be “re-educated” and returned to a non-criminal life. This has been accomplished in many prisons, according to reports I am aware of. The psychopath remains the tough nut to crack for this society. He is always taking over the systems we design to restrain him! And this is what we have seen with psychiatry.

  • This article is overall meaningful, but includes a stinging accusation that I see all the time on the internet.

    While young psychiatrists are urged to question or dismiss the false beliefs that are rampant in their profession, the author perpetrates just such a belief about my church!

    And so, in his attempt to bring together or strengthen a coalition that will stand up to the lunacy known as “modern psychiatric practice,” he slaps in the face one of the most important members of that coalition.

    What an irony!

  • At this level (stopping psychiatric malpractice), we are dealing with the subject of Ethics. And according to our Ethics, the suppressives must be removed from the environment before healing can occur (the healing technology, such as Dianetics, can then be applied). The suppressives will not allow healing (repair) to occur! I have become healthier just from knowing this, and dealing with suppressives in my own environment appropriately. I have heard of businesses recovering, and I have seen the stories of people who have recovered from toxic relationships.

    Of course if the systems have become very broken, then much repair will be needed. And there is the promise of a much more rational and creative future, which is what our technologies are all about. But the first step is to get in ethics! And that means getting the suppressives off the lines, and keeping them away. The technology of ethics was not totally put together until the 1970s, while Dianetics came out in the 1950s. An important reason that my group had difficulties in the early years was because its procedures for dealing with suppressives had not been fully developed.

    You may if you wish, edit down or edit out my references to some of these technical details. I was trying to keep my comments on a more broadly understandable level by using only more mainstream terms (like psychopath) and people (like Sandra Brown). But I think it is significant that she gives this problem a similar level of importance to that given to it by the church. She finds psychopathy a very fundamental barrier to healing, and everything I have studied agrees with this conclusion.

    And yes, I do have a “rose-colored” view of society! People are basically good. They are capable of great works and great achievements when psychopaths are not allowed to obstruct them. And while this is little more than a hopeful dream today, I do not put an emphasis on “the system” because I think that without psychopathy, the system would become a rather minor problem.

  • Steve, I think it’s been shown that eliminating sociopathy from a scene improves the scene. You may be aware of something I’m not aware of, but my understanding is that when a person really disconnects from a sociopathic spouse of friend, they actually do heal. If sociopaths were prevented from entering the field of psychiatry, the good-hearted people would take it over, and it would start working for the benefit of all. And I believe the same is true of businesses and governments. It doesn’t happen like a light switch, but it does happen.

    We have to remember that the sociopath does not just work to do evil, but also to hold back those trying to do good. If the ones trying to do good were not held back any more, they would triumph.

    There are documented instances of this, even in history.

    If this is your concern about those that dwell on the problem of sociopathy – the inevitable inertia of the broken systems they leave behind – I invite you to reconsider. A broken system can be repaired, when no one is preventing the repair man from doing his job! That is how I understand life to work. I will not detail examples here, but I believe they can be found.

  • And so we have yet another video warning of the dangers of these drugs.

    So far, though, what we seem to be seeing in the bulk of the population is: “But what else can we do? Don’t we have to take a chance with the drug, as there is no other way for the ill person to get better?”

    This is the next barrier to break through: The belief that drugs are the only road to recovery.

  • I know a very good woman whose marriage was ruined, as far as I can tell, because her husband was taking Adderall long after it had served its intended purpose. He would have fits of rage that really frightened her. The social consequences of using these drugs are extensive. A woman with her two little boys feels forced to leave an otherwise working marriage, loses her job, and must live like an outcast in her parent’s home. How many similar tragedies have resulted from the overuse of these drugs?

  • Thank you! I wish this subject were more routinely discussed here.

    Yes, Spirit is quick, efficient and cheap. Thus, it is a friend to the people, and an enemy to their oppressors.

    But I think we could maintain an economy in quite good shape while also using Spirit much more often and in ways appropriate to life in biological bodies on a planet.

    After all, the oppression of the Spirit deniers has resulted in a population that is much sicker, slower, and dumber than what they could be if they were very healthy. With a healthy population, we could have much more production and much less waste.

    I am not very well-read outside of the subjects I have chosen to focus on. That diet sounds great, but I try to keep my sights not on eating or exercise or all those care-of-body practices but on care-of-Spirit.

  • If we propose that it is “society” that is sick, we have no way out.

    If we can entertain the possibility that just some people in society are sick, and that they are the ones making it hard on the rest of us, then there could be a way out.

    I think everyone here should become more familiar with the subject of psychopathy (the anti-social personality). I think this subject is key to understanding the situation we are in.

  • This whole business is a huge issue in society right now, on many levels.
    My problem with the above is this concept of “system.” What “system?” This is a generalization that leaves us with no target, no way to correct the wrongs or fight back.

    I have been mentioning psychopaths a lot in my recent posts. Yesterday I went back and reviewed the conventional data on this subject. I found new interviews posted, (Sandra L. Brown) and a recently-made documentary on narcissistic abuse in relationships. Sandra asserts that psychopathy “is the biggest public health problem in this country.” So there are some people who are pursuing this subject and are seeing it for what it is!

    What we have when we think in terms of psychopathy rather than “systems” is actual individual targets for correction. And furthermore, all the data I have suggest that psychopaths are what make the “system” seem so oppressive, when it does seem that way. Psychopaths are experts in hiding themselves, of removing themselves from the conversation. Don’t let that happen here! That a certain percentage of people in society are broken makes a lot more sense to me than saying the whole society is broken. And it leads to a possible way out.

  • First I can say this: If a certain number of us can move away from the insanity, particularly on specific issues like Adderall, those who trust us to make smart decisions will go along. This is not ideal, but has been the case on Earth for a long time.

    Second: I have decided to push hard for a better understanding of Spirit on this planet. As long as “mental illness” is seen as a bodily disease, and people agree that drugs are a good way to handle or manage bodily diseases, we will have a terrible time convincing anyone to roll back drug use, even with the horrendous “side effects” that many of us have witnessed or heard about.

    If we can somehow begin to recognize the importance of Spirit in human life, human affairs, and healing, that opens the door to a whole new world of possibilities and understandings. The quantity of data that lies on the other side of that door never ceases to amaze me! And a lot of it IS being talked about on the internet, even if it remains ridiculed in the mainstream.

    The mainstream is wearing out its welcome for other reasons right now. But unless the political structure that supports it totally breaks down, it will never stop trying. And so, we must never stop trying.

    At this point in my life I only have about 20 years left in this body, if I’m smart and lucky. But I fully intend to come back and carry on with what we have started. I have seen others do this, so I am confident I can.

    Though it seems in some ways weak compared to real action, our ability to think and speak freely is the most important weapon we have to fight the insanity on this planet, and particularly in the “mental health” system. Though training in and using proven workable spiritual practices is very important, that others find out that such practices exist and are being used successfully is also very important.

    An example of that is your bringing up Patch Adams. I knew absolutely nothing abut this man, so I am very happy that you do, and referred to him in your article. He is an inspiration for MDs (not just psychiatrists) and though the fact that his approach is very spiritual isn’t that obvious, anyone who bothers to listen to him can clearly see that his is indeed bringing the healing power of Spirit into the realm of medicine, and has done so with great success.

  • This is good news. But…the U.N. has become very adept at marketing. Can they actually DO anything to give some teeth to these more humanistic principles?

    The U.N. is peopled mostly by college graduates and other intellectuals, and while such persons are quite capable of writing high-minded reports, they are also quite capable of letting gross atrocities slip under their noses, then adding the needed spin to deflect their responsibility for what happened. (I am thinking in particular of the story of how cholera was introduced to Haiti.)

    So, this report lands on me similar to how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might have landed on the planet in its day. It is beautifully worded and was signed by almost every nation. But until my church began to broadly publicize its existence, very few people even knew about it. And by the way, how is human rights doing around the world today?

    So, well done on the lip service. Now, could we please see some action?

  • I know, Steve. These ideas which I give voice to are preposterous on their face. But I have seen people maintain these ideas as facts with the utmost seriousness!

    I am not trying to say that these movements, once started, were not supported by people of high integrity and good intentions. I am not saying that anyone who ever thought, “let’s start a movement to improve our situation” was a fool or a criminal.

    But I am saying that many “social movements” have involved a lot of conflict (often to the point of warfare or murder) and making whole groups wrong for their beliefs or attitudes, and such activities, to me, show signs of criminal insanity.

    Following is a typical example of what one can be exposed to if one noses around overmuch into these issues:

    “While trying to recruit Aaron Russo for the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), Nicholas Rockefeller told him that his family foundation created women’s liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity.”

    Do we know that this is true? No, we don’t.
    Does there seem to be some effort on this planet to “enslave” us? There does to me! So, where does it come from? Who’s behind it?

    The Rockefellers are one known family of swindlers. Who knows what motivated them down through the generations? But I know that 1) psychopaths exist in positions of power and 2) if they didn’t, things would be better. So I am willing to stretch a point in the hopes that it will motivate others to stretch their thinking beyond normal limits. Things on Earth really are stranger than they appear! Of that I am quite certain!

  • It is true what you say about these toxic personalities existing everywhere. But in psychiatry, it seems, they find the chance to really “shine.” In many other professions, they merely taint the reputations of others who are trying to do honest work. In the field of psychiatry they have created a “profession” that is universally reviled. At least, this is how I see the situation.

  • I very much appreciate the calmness and simple optimism of this article.

    I wish the data I have been exposed to made me feel as calm as I would like to feel about this subject.

    Activists have made a good start by recognizing the fact that there is wrong-doing in the mental health system, by measure of our own laws, and informing others of this. Groups like mine have focused on tightening the legal noose around psychiatry, in the hopes that we can reduce the damage being done. But the amount of damage being done is now so appalling! And so I am not that calm.

    All change must start with the recognition for the need of change. This article and this site does well on that score.

  • It seems like official organs such as the U.N. are catching up on this issue just in time to be ineffectually contentious about it. MK-ULTRA and similar programs date from the 1950s. Alarms were sounded back then, but not heeded.

    Of course by some great feat of intellect and courage, this whole business could still be dismantled. But as things stand, it is practically built in to daily life.

  • kindredspirit, you have every right to believe as you wish about these issues. But you express the conventional wisdom about how and why these movements came about, and so far, acting on those theories have not effected a lasting change.

    I think it is time to inspect some other theories about this that take deeper causes into account. That’s why I advocate for people to look into the subject of Spirit. It leads to deeper causes.

  • This all fits into why people interested in psychology should also be interested in Spirit. From the data I am aware of, some people, as spiritual beings, became prone to antisocial behavior a long time ago. The cure also involves undoing that ancient problem they are stuck in that makes them fight anyone and everyone around them as if they were enemies. A person who has no reality on Spirit would think these ideas are silly.

    The key, then, is to prevent such personalities from attaining positions is society where they can have undue power over others. This seems “unfair” or “discriminatory.” Well, we do it to people we call “criminals” all the time! It’s just that there are a strata of anti-socials who are smart enough to elude the justice system: psychiatrists and their ilk. It would be unfair to good people who happen to venture into the world of psychiatry to prevent them from continuing with their work. So “are you a psychiatrist?” is not an adequate test. The best test, in our society, involves 1) ascertaining that they have committed crimes and 2) ascertaining that they are of this personality type. There are several tests for it, Robert Hare’s being perhaps the best-known.

    There have been many psychiatrists who have been removed from practice based on their crimes alone, but seeing as how they work to protect each other, and currently control the personality assessment business, the above ideas are currently impractical, and our job becomes trying to convince society that their work is criminal while they busily try to convince society that their work is OK. Though I like to think we are making progress, outwardly we appear to be losing this battle.

  • You should know that I don’t totally agree with this.

    It is a reasonable point of view about life. But my data suggest that anti-social personalities, when protected or supported instead of exposed and hindered, do harm in society way out of proportion to their numbers.

    “Most of the ills of society come from humans making destructive decisions due to their lack of perspective or courage or their fears or desires to dominate others.”

    OK. But what gives them that lack of perspective, lack of courage, fears or desire to dominate? It can often be traced back to an anti-social personality. Psychiatry currently protects such personalities as much as they can. Without that protection, that facade of legitimacy, they would become much less dangerous.

    This is a very important reason why I am against psychiatry. It goes way beyond the fact that they “don’t understand” or are greedy. A lot of people don’t understand a lot of stuff, and a lot of people are greedy. But they don’t do the damage that psychiatry has done on this planet.

  • I agree with you, rebel, in many ways.
    Perhaps when you say “end psychiatry” it means something different to you than what it means to Steve, or others.
    From my perspective, it would be more proper to state the goal as: “Remove all power from the profession currently called “psychiatry” and its practitioners, then find a way to shut out from positions of power all people such as those practitioners, and others in other fields which they have enabled to do harm in the name of help, and find a way for relatively sane people of good intentions to retain power in society, and perhaps some day abolish the madness that motivates those clearly insane beings.”
    The wording needs work.
    But I am trying to convey a concept that I think is correct but that is not totally easy to understand.
    Part of the problem is that many people today have no real concept of Spirit, or if they do, they don’t think it is important. Christians (along with many others who have studied religion) at least have some concept of it. So a Christian can conceive that a person could somehow be convinced to do the Devil’s work. My understanding of how this happens is a little different, as it involves Spirit, but no particular Devil.

    The point is, such persons exist. And they should not be allowed to rule over others! It comes out bad every time. We can imagine that modern psychiatry (known, perhaps, by other names in other times and places) was set up by such people to give them a legitimate facade behind which they could do their evil. And so it, as a profession, attracts such people (along with a few well-intentioned people here and there). Thus to really abolish that profession would deprive such persons of their major power base on Earth. But it would not abolish such persons. Plenty of them, for various reasons of opportunity or intellect, did not make it into psychiatry, and so go about their evil activities in less obvious ways. But to take the power away from psychiatry on Earth would be huge, and to think that psychiatrists, or people very much like them, have not been involved in many of the most despicable activities throughout human history would be naive. If their influence on Earth could be drastically reduced, in theory at least, the planet could become a much calmer place. We might still have all the problems they left us with, but we would have a fighting chance of solving them. If we continue to tolerate such beings in positions of power, I don’t think Earth has a chance.

  • Wow!

    When Britney speaks, CNN listens!

    Take her case and multiply it by a million or more, and you have some idea what is going on on this planet right now. For the criminals these systems serve (or can be persuaded to serve) this is all great “fun.” For the rest of us, this is so deeply disturbing that it’s a little difficult to confront.

    The criminals need this. The mass of humanity does not. But there are few among the saner ones who are courageous enough to stand up to the criminals and call them out. We all know how quickly they will defend their ways with murder. Yet stand up to them we must!

  • Thank you! For me the ultimate argument against the chronic drugging of people is the fact – perhaps it can some day even be proven – that Spirit is the ultimate source of all healing. And Spirit does not need drugs! If anything, Spirit works better without them.

    This is a huge “leap of faith” for most people. Yet I believe that very little traditional faith is actually required to know that this is so. Of course, this is absolutely the last thing any mainstream psychiatrist would want anyone to believe. But I think the few left who kindly practice real therapy would agree with it without hesitation.

  • I am VERY surprised that CNN would cover this!
    What’s going on with that? I have seen the mainstream cover paranormal topics every now and again. Back in the “old days” it was often done in good faith, but more recently it usually has been used as an opportunity to ridicule the assumptions such data tend to support.

    These phenomena sre hard to study because they don’t normally occur under controlled laboratory conditions. But those who wish to study this seriously should do so. Eventually, perhaps, there will develop a basic agreed-upon context for such events. I know I have already formulated such a context, but there is not a lot of agreement on what “flavor” to use, even among those who are quite certain that Spirit is real and should be taken seriously in all aspects of life.

  • I must say, I am leery of any article which starts out with a reference to Benjamin Rush!

    This topic probably deserves more discussion than I am willing to devote to it, but I imagine other readers will extend their remarks far beyond mine.

    I now start (I didn’t always) with the assumption that there are some people who wish to normalize drug use on this planet because it plays into their own plans which are basically political and include no sincere motivation to provide social benefit.

    Anti drug use laws were a crude attempt by others who did have a sincere motivation to provide social benefit to de-normalize drug use. These laws have largely failed. What the people of the world needed was more data (or you could say, an educational program), but the general consensus seemed to be that that was somebody else’s job.

    A lot of people I know not only think drug use is stupid because it does not handle root cause of any condition and poisons the body, but also that it is morally weak. This sometimes gets in the way of their thinking and work in this subject. My group does have the best and most effective drug education program on the planet, as well as the best anti-addiction program, but our resources are not up to the enormity of the problem.

    In this context, “harm reduction” seems like a useful effort on one hand, and on the other hand a cop-out. If it were coupled with an education program designed to inform users of the harmful side effects of drug use, then it would make more sense to me. Without this, it appears that this approach is simply caving in to the interests who want to normalize drug use on this planet. And that very definitely includes psych drug use.

  • Her books are memoirs. They are not “about her personal beliefs.” But if you don’t want to delve into Dena’s work, there is a lot of other material out there on the subject of parapsychology, and reincarnation in particular, done by real academics.

    But you illustrate my point with your own words: “I don’t find that kind of experience very interesting or likely to be credible.” This is the very data we need to understand this whole situation a lot batter, yet you for some reason have little interest in it. This is the conundrum of understanding the human mind! It tends to resist being understood.

  • You aren’t familiar with the quote attributed to a Rockefeller that they started “women’s lib?”

    Or the criminal tactic of throwing the public off their scent by concocting a fake enemy?

    Do you think “racism” against blacks was really caused by whites or “whiteness?” It was caused by criminals (who knows what color they were) to create a never-ending turmoil (they hoped) in the general population. And I’m sure those same criminals had a hand in guiding the civil rights movement.

    I don’t think we credit the criminal class with how much they are actually involved in creating these conflicts through extremely devious means. They can’t do anything useful in society, but they do a great job at muddying the waters around all sorts of issues.

  • Have you read Dena’s books? I don’t care about the religious beliefs in those books. They are about past life recall and the influence of other lifetimes (sometimes called “karma”) on the present lifetime. We can’t get anywhere in psychology unless we realize this. It’s not a matter of “who is right.” It is a matter of what is really true, and what might actually work.

  • This is cool insofar as it is a drugless therapy. But its theory is all brain-based.

    As long as we cling to this failed way of understanding the mind, we risk falling back under the influence of psychiatry and “modern” psychology. There is a whole body of work using Spirit-based theory and practices that needs to be explored.

    When am I going to hear news of someone using a Locational or similar process and what their experiences were with it?

  • Rebel, I speak what I have learned. My sources are “fringe” so I usually don’t mention them. I can’t “prove” what I say. But if my sources are being truthful with me, and if I am relaying what they are telling me faithfully, then I do hope a certain level of validation of basic truth will result.

    I often mention Spirit (one translation for the Greek “psyche”) in my comments. I do hope that at least a few readers will realize I am referring to Ian Stevenson’s group (now led by Jim Tucker) as well as groups more on the fringe, and go ahead and look into some of the subjects they study.

    All the more unbelievable data I relay in my comments comes from either spiritual memory or spiritual perception, so the first thing anyone needs to come to grips with that data is a decent concept of Spirit.

  • The situation she describes is very real.
    If individuals in a local community can’t figure out how to organize and fund a charity clinic that uses workable drugless methods to help people, then those who can’t afford what their insurance will not cover have no choice.
    From other comments, this person sounds like they might be in Florida. I know that CCHR there has a pretty good network of people who help people who have been Baker Acted get out of institutions. But they don’t yet have a network of alternative clinics. And neither does anyone else.

    Being in or near poverty puts you in a different world. Many resources that “average” Americans can afford are not available, and charity resources often serve special interests. The usual advice I hear from my side of the fence is, “figure out how to get out of poverty.” Though there is some validity in that advice, it’s more easily said than done.

    In fact, help in many subjects is weak and hard to come by. This will only get worse the longer psychiatry and its bedfellows continue to poison our thinking and our own self-confidence.