Monday, September 21, 2020

Comments by l_e_cox

Showing 100 of 276 comments. Show all.

  • The “evidence-based” approach comes from engineering. There, if a bridge design results in a collapsed bridge, you find a better design. It could work in the humanities, but not if researchers treat people the way they do machines.

    Deception is a very basic problem in this society. You can only overcome it by learning how to spot it and then not tolerating it in your relationships. It’s too widespread to do this 100%, but anything in that direction should help.

    If I were a therapist, I would teach my patient the basic concepts, but try to get him to cooperate even if he were skeptical. But I would work with a supervisor who would grade my sessions for technical precision and correct me if I made any errors. I would pick a therapy that had been tested and proven effective, and would seek to deliver it standardly, with no variations.

    This is not the current practice in the field of mental health, and its current overlords seem so bent on failure, that I doubt it ever wil be. Though the therapies I have studied are said to contribute to “mental health,” they have no real resemblance to anything I’ve ever seen done in the field of psychotherapy.

  • I read the abstract of the study. It is very pro-screening, even though the process produces results that are nearly useless, even in these people’s own frame of reference!

    It has always been my group’s position that the ONLY purpose of screening is find “reasonable” justifications for getting more people (usually children) involved in the “mental health” system. This study confirms this for M-CHAT. The study authors are totally fine with continuing to use M-CHAT because it continues to result in more customers for their operation.

    I hope this is in some way persuasive in my argument that the current operation is basically a creation of criminal personalities.

  • In my dream world, the police would realize what psychiatrists were doing and take them out themselves. They would suddenly find the amount of lawbreaking greatly reduced and would retire or find more productive and less dangerous ways of life. Defund psychiatry – accomplished!

    And in psychiatry’s dream world…the police would join the “mental health system” and criminals could do anything they wanted (except mess with a psychiatrist). Defund police – accomplished!

    Which dream seems to be winning?

  • I’m sorry: This would be a very amusing article if it were not dealing with such serious issues.

    For me, “climate change” is just another trigger phrase, like “mental illness” that lead us out into long discussions about existential threats which end up ignoring the most basic source of all real shorter-term (hundreds of years) challenges here on Earth. The most basic source for all these challenges is the sociopath.

    His primary strategy is to give people things to worry about so they won’t notice it while he gradually turns them all into slaves. In a slave system, the sociopath can assume his rightful role as “master.” This is his fondest dream.

    For us to worry over all the other challenges of life – real challenges – without recognizing this primary challenge is self-defeating. We can only understand these real challenges when we recognize to what a great extent they are being caused – or effective handlings are being blocked – by sociopaths who occupy power positions in society.

    I write this immediately after reviewing a couple of long articles about the subject of “political ponerology” as developed by Polish psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski. This material aligns quite well with my earlier training in this subject. For those who are willing to study it, understand it, and deal with it, is solves many riddles as well as pointing a way forward. I am surprised the subject is not mentioned more often on this website.

    I have also been reviewing the recent work of Dr. Peter Breggin. He continues to focus on the threat of authoritarian rule (Lobaczewski’s “pathocracy”) in the world, and particularly here in the U.S. We thought we had a fool-proof way to preserve basic human freedoms here, but even that is failing us under the onslaught of psychopathic ideas currently being promoted to us.

    I hope this will be a website where these concerns can be expressed and discussed. But as the pressure builds, that openness will become more and more difficult to maintain.

  • The clarification is appreciated. But then your first example is from a relationship, not a therapy session.

    While of course therapists will get nowhere if they say things that make their patients wrong, the same thing could be said for other relationships, even if there is less power asymmetry.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if there were a “therapists’ code” that therapists would get trained in? And if a patient felt the therapist was violating that code, the violation could be reported to some sort of mediator? I know of such a code. It is not appropriate to promote it here, but it has been an important part of my training.

    “Give it time to heal” is a statement based on observations of how bodies heal, but shows an almost total ignorance of how the mind works. It is a great way to tell that a therapist has no real idea what to do to help you. Chances are the immediate effects of a traumatic event will wear off, but the potential power of that event to affect you later can only be handled either by addressing the event directly or by addressing the being’s ability to rise above such experiences.

    I understand the personal nature of this series of essays and that they are really aimed at the helping professions. But every person should be able to step in and help someone in a time of need. I have worn both hats (therapist and patient) but spent most of my life wearing neither. Yet I’m glad I have some training in this area, as you never know when a situation will come up where someone needs your help.

  • Well, let me leave you with this, then. Because I’m no big cheese on this site, nor do I always see much support for my arguments.

    I don’t know how old you are or how you were raised, but in my day it was OK to disagree, even quite stridently. It didn’t get anyone in trouble and “hurt feelings” were of no particular concern. Those customs are changing – but not, I think, because the new customs are better. So I hope you can see that I have no particular wish to tell you what you should or should not say or think. I’m only asking you to look at the same data I’ve looked at and consider it as you move forward.

    I did not discover the “problem” of immortality by studying the Eastern traditions. I had heard about reincarnation, but skipped over it, as most people in the West do. But then I found that a researcher in the West had validated it. And the acceptance of this reality of life had led to an incredible amount of new information and a whole new set of healing practices. Later I found that others in the West were also taking this seriously. Even some psychiatrists!

    I then took it upon myself to try to get others in the West, or any devotees of Western materialism, to consider the possibility of an immortal personality and what that could mean for human thought and life. It begins with the fact of past life recall. This is a simple, documented fact. The only question about this fact is whether you are willing to accept it or feel compelled to resist it. Many people in the West feel totally compelled to resist this fact. I don’t. I can’t explain exactly why. I welcome the possibilities that result from embracing this fact.

    How many past lives, for instance, can a single person recall? I know an adept, Dena Merriam, who has recalled at least seven (all on Earth) and has written about all of them. I have personally met people who have recalled at least one. But I have seen research indicating that this recall can go way way back. We have, for example, Robert James’ work Passport to Past Lives. He reports finding past lives on other planets. So you see, if we have a way to access this past life data reliably, this begins to look more interesting. Merriam’s book makes it clear that mental conflicts in the present life can be related to long past experiences. And the other data I have seen only reinforces this. As I mentioned, there is even a whole healing practice based on these discoveries.

    So, without going deeper into details, this is why I keep bringing this up. I see it as a huge blind spot in Western thinking that has forced us into a box we could easily free ourselves from. It has wide-ranging implications in human thought and practice. And it basically eliminates the need for psychiatry as we know it. So, I’m coming from the viewpoint that we already have a better answer, so let’s just get on with things. No need to spend endless years trying to “find the answer.” Let’s just implement the answers we’ve already discovered!

  • Hello evan, this is Larry. So we are coming here from very different places. I am trying to solve the problem of criminality on this planet. And you seem more interested in ideas about the psyche and personal experience.

    While that is all fine and well, we are here to share our views and experiences, mainly, on the topic of psychiatric abuse and what can be done about it. The problem has a political component, an economic component, a theoretical component, and a practical component. (There may be others).

    We are observing the phenomenon of a profession being driven, apparently, by a desire for profit (or even for the suffering of others) over excellence of result. The more cynical among us posit that this is the story of all professions, really. But these people are doctors. They are supposed to be bound by an oath to do no harm. Yet they participated in such atrocities as the extermination of millions by Nazis in Germany in the 1930s an 1940s. They have wounded or killed thousands (if not millions) around the world with barbaric psychosurgeries and electroshock. And today they freely use drugs to “treat” “illnesses” of the mind and spirit! (Psyche – spirit.)

    We gather to learn what motivates this (I suggest that those who participate willingly in such practices are basically insane, and suffer from antisocial personality disorder, by their own descriptions of this disorder!). We wonder how it can be stopped (there is a leaning towards the idea of simply discrediting the entire subject). We occasionally explore alternatives (such as Open Dialogue, nutritional therapies, or maybe just leaving people alone). And sometimes we discuss underlying theory (which I insist, for example, must include the realization that we exist as immortal beings – a conclusion somewhat supported by the work of psychiatrist Ian Stevenson and his team – one of many ironies in this world).

    While we occasionally stray into the world of mysticism, paranormal phenomena, and traditional healing practices, these topics seem to me to be well beyond our main focus. We realize that many other answers exist. We are trying here to address the dominance of this “answer,” which turns out to be a false and destructive one.

    I hope this assists in orienting you to why I am here, and that it is a fair portrayal of why this website is here. Steve, as our moderator, may have points to add or modify.

  • I have become convinced that, though facts do help build certainties that people rely on, in this case things seem to be boiling down to a question of belief, or relative values. I value freedom over mere bodily life. Others seem to value mere bodily life over freedom. Although this involves a great and noble debate that has echoed down through the centuries, it is unlikely that “science” will ever resolve it. I am discouraged, though, by the way some of the key arguments that got this country (in its current form) off the ground, seem so weak and unpersuasive now.

  • It seems to me a bit that we are talking past each other. That’s all right. I write my comments for all to read, not just the one I am replying to. Particularly because I barely know most of you, but also because this is a public dialog, not a private one.

    I have never formally studied psychology or psychiatry. I have never read Freud, Jung, Adler, Hoffer or any of the rest of them, except for a tiny bit of Berne. My interests led me to material of a more spiritual nature. I write from that viewpoint.

    Are you familiar with the material I refer to? Rees’ 1940 speech about being a “fifth column?” Chisholm’s rant against morality? The avid participants in MK-Ultra? It is not that these men typified the profession. It is that the profession tolerated them.

    And you don’t mention the problem of ASPD. Neither do most psychiatrists. I think they’d like to remove it from the DSM. Maybe some day they will.

    My purpose here is to speak for the diminishment or eradication of current psychiatric belief and practice. That won’t make Jung go away, and that doesn’t bother me. His contributions extend far beyond the field of psychiatry. But this is my basic position and I try to argue for it and to caution against a more lenient viewpoint. There are a lot of lives at stake, and I try to keep that in mind.

  • I see this writer caught in a very difficult state of mind. This is the fate of the victim who depends for their meaning on a victimizer.

    Consider the possibility that Critical Theory, with its Colonizers and Deconstruction and all the rest of it, might come from a similar place as Jaffe’s theories. Consider if you can that Jaffe’s obsession might in fact have been his own illness. If you have never met someone who seriously lacks self-awareness, you might not credit it as a human possibility. I have met a few such people.

    I will not burden down this comment with further imaginings. Here we see the fierce proponent of a devastating evil meet his maker, while the evil quite certainly lives on. Obviously, the two are not the same. If you wish to understand more about these things, I suggest you leave the traditional boundaries of academia and explore, at least for a while, elsewhere. There is much to learn beyond the sweet safety of the ivory tower! And that goes for both the colonizer and his critics.

  • On the topic of Capitalism: I know we have some anti-Capitalists here. But I urge you to inspect how connecting an economic practice with what is essentially the political practice of psychiatry could muddy the waters of any argument against the latter.

    Practices like psychiatry have thrived under Monarchy, under Oligarchy, under Fascism, under Communism, under Socialism, and, yes, under Capitalism. And so has crime. Crime plays no political or economic favorites! It exists to steal and destroy, not to create a healthy economy and society.

    Decry crime in the “free” nations of Earth. Decry crime in the offices of corporate power, or political power. And you will have my full agreement.

    Decry an economic idea that has served us well, if not perfectly, for many centuries, and I become confused by your arguments. This is no longer something that is obvious to me. I wonder why it seems so obvious to you.

  • I see that you are uncomfortable with the urge to “dehumanize” psychiatrists.
    Do you think that is what we are doing here? Whatuser echos this concern: “It’s not because they’re monstrous people…” I would only note that in this statement, they remain “people” and so technically have not been dehumanized by the statement. Monstrous PEOPLE do exist! Do you not agree?

    I agree that to accuse an entire profession of being criminal looks like the application of a very blunt instrument. Yet if there is any group we would be justified in generalizing about, it would be this one. Are you aware of this group’s background and legacy? Are you aware of what their leaders have said and planned and done?

    There were, perhaps, “good Nazis” too. But if you were essentially a good person, why would you associate yourself with a group like Nazis? Perhaps some medical students are unaware of the atrocious history of psychiatry, or somehow expect that they will not turn out like that. But wouldn’t it be wiser, if you knew the truth, to just walk away?

    Perhaps some commenters here pick their words a bit carelessly. But most of us really want the entirety of what is known today as the subject (and profession) of psychiatry to go the way of Eugenics, or Race Science, or policies like forced euthanasia. We want psychiatry to die as an active, practiced body of thought. At least we want the human rights abuses to end. But in the case of psychiatry those are closely related goals, as the purpose of the subject seems to be to violate the rights of people without them realizing it until it is too late.

    Perhaps the concept of the criminal mind is foreign to you, or you feel it is incorrect or outmoded. Perhaps it makes no sense to you to label an entire body of thought as criminal. Well, we should probably work harder here to make these things more clear! It is worth discussing.

    Often contained inside a troubled “science” are the seeds of its own destruction. But I would advise all visitors here to learn what you can about the condition called “antisocial personality disorder” before they remove it from the list of “mental illnesses.” It seems only a matter of time before crime becomes embraced by”modern” culture as legal! We see it happening all around us now. If we do not speak out strongly for what is right, we could lose any remaining freedom we have to speak of this in public. That is my concern, and that is why I try not to mince words about this subject.

  • Anxiety is basically worry about what might happen. I don’t recall being very anxious when I was a teenager. But I almost went crazy once when I was younger and was told I needed to recite a story I had written from memory in front of an audience of parents. That’s anxiety!

    My father was a professor of Social Work, and he paid for his schooling with a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health – part of organized psychiatry. In the 1960s Social Work was not about therapy or counseling. Psychologists did that. Organized psychiatry helped push social workers into the field of psychotherapy. Now over half of all social workers do psychotherapy.

    She talks about “brain” when meaning mind. That’s being pushed by psychology and psychiatry. It doesn’t really make that much sense and I think it is really unhelpful. It leads to drug interventions.

    Psychotherapy is a step (or maybe several steps) closer to doing something good for people. But it is not all that is available. I know that it falls far short of what is possible today. I recently read a book about past life recall. It was about one person who had recalled several past lives. Her story made clear how important buried experience is in creating anxiety. Most “modern” therapies don’t even touch this aspect of mental health.

    I also notice (as when I was in therapy) that therapists tend to gloss over societal stressors that have to do with possible future events. These are a huge source of anxiety in people. This amounts to a sort of societal bullying or making threats via the media. When I was a teenager this sort of messaging was not getting through nearly as much as it is now. These days it is through the roof! Pollution has morphed into climate change, with the most strident messages bordering on the apocalyptic. Flu season has morphed into pandemic scares. Foreign wars have morphed into threats of violence in our streets. Good economic conditions have morphed into large debts and employment problems for many groups.

    Her theories and therapies sound superficial to me, like the pop-psych spots I used to hear on the radio. For me, this is part of a marketing campaign that gives the appearance of being helpful while actually legitimizing a “mental health” system that is failing us. She is saying that anxiety is a brain problem related to the amygdala, but also saying that we can handle it my managing our stressors and so forth. To me that’s a very mixed message that leads straight towards drugs if the therapy doesn’t work. We don’t need that.

    On top of this, she is acting stupid about how the “mental health” system leads to medical interventions. What’s with that? That’s our current system. We don’t have a quarter of the population on psych drugs because everyone is doing fine in therapy! Where’s the alarm about the drugs? She’s acting like nothing’s wrong.

  • This is a common perception about many professions, that the resistance they see to more truthful narratives is simply a matter of individual personal conflicts or ignorance. But this is not the lesson of history. And beyond that, all the professions have professional organizations, and there are other organizations that connect those organizations. We know that. They don’t even try to hide it any more. You may think if you wish that no cabal exists concerning this or other subjects of great concern in society today. But there can be no doubt that the potential for cabal exists.

    To the extent that a potential for collusion exists, and that some investigators have found it when they looked, an offhand brushoff from peers or our “betters” seems not much more than gaslighting. In the case of psychiatry, historical cabal has been proven. This could be seen as reassuring. Perhaps if the grip of corrupt leaders could be loosened or broken, then fewer would be tempted into corruption.

    That is, after all, what this article is all about.

  • Could you please calm down about this? We are on an anti-psych website and you want to call someone out for forwarding a conspiracy theory? Let’s state our views without calling names.

    Everyone has their own boundaries regarding “science.” Can I favor Intelligent Design and research into past lives, all done by very competent academics, or is that off limits, too? These subjects are highly relevant to questions of human psychology.

  • Yes, so we see that some wealthy individuals and groups seem to control Big Pharma and are also involved in all the other multinational corporations who seem to be the “bad guys” in our current world. And that’s getting pretty high up on the pyramid of power. But I don’t know that it reaches the very top.

    Their only real defense at this point is their secrecy. And my hope is that as we find more ways around (or through) that secrecy, they can be dislodged. But we should realize that if we take down the top of that pyramid, we will have to replace it with people who can deal with the same pressures that those people are dealing with in a way that is more honest and humane. Someone has to walk in those shoes.

  • I believe “neoliberalism” may be a misnomer in this context. It is mostly a political-economic theory, not a social one. What the study is seeing could be characterized more, perhaps, as New Age.
    From the study:
    “The expectations were of an abundance of life and educational options, and a dominating discourse that young people in Scandinavia can become whatever they wish.”

    Here is a typical New Age pronouncement from Vikas Jain (corrected for one incorrect word):
    “With the changing business and social ecosystem, learning needs are also changing at an even faster pace. Organizations are getting disrupted through new-age technologies and innovations that require constant skilling, upskilling, reskilling, building industry-relevant knowledge, and more.”
    “In this New-Age Education, there are New-Age Educators such as Speakers, Coaches, Corporate Trainers, Seminar Leaders, etc. to disseminate the knowledge and skills through seminars, conferences, and various other interventions.”

    This is a push for corporate success through “mastery” of various skill sets. It’s all very catchy and slick. And you can see when you read this stuff that some of these people don’t have a clue what they are talking about. It’s marketing. “Be the best that you can be.” That’s not what they told me when I went to school!

    It puts tremendous pressure on kids. That’s all this study really tells us. Did we really need an academic study to tell us this?

  • Bhargavi has an interesting experience of growing up with her mother committed to a mental institution for many years. This was a British system that was obviously suppressive.

    Now she has adopted elements of Critical Theory to point out these weaknesses and advocate for change. She knows of some traditional methods that can be used, and her psychology training probably also informs her. But she doesn’t really have a new vision yet. That’s a weakness of Critical Theory.

    I listened to a radio interview with her where she tells a story of something that happened to her brother, I think, about a ghost trapped in a wall. It talked to him and convinced him to let it out! This is somewhat common in India. Can you imagine how many ghosts might be hanging around in a land that has been continuously inhabited by a similar culture for thousands of years?

    The West doesn’t appreciate any of that. And now many Asians are getting trained in the West, so they are losing their appreciation for these realities also. I have found a teaching that embraces both Eastern and Western aspects of experience. And that’s what they need in the East. So they can tell the West, “we’re doing just fine, thank you. We don’t need your solutions!” But I fear that most of Asia still looks to the West with great envy. They want what we have, and don’t care (yet) about the consequences. But some do realize that there will be consequences.

  • What scares me the most about these people is that they seem to be able to learn from their (marketing) mistakes. Their basic purpose never alters, while their propaganda strategies are forever fluid.

    Though I would not normally support the blanket condemnation of an entire group for the transgressions of some of its members, this particular group (psychiatry) has allowed so much atrocity within its ranks for such a long period of time, that I break this rule in this case.

    I am well aware of Chelmsford, of course. But as the article points out, that legacy continues. Right now we are just trying to hold back these depraved beings. At some point I hope we will be able to actually root them out.

  • (oh-oh – all typefaces rendered italic!)
    This is a kind of commentary enjoying a lot of popularity right now. But when you critique a broken system, you of course can find large numbers of problems with it.

    It would be one thing to critique a system that was actually working for one set of clients, but not for another. But what can you do with the knowledge that the system has cultural biases when the whole system works so poorly to begin with?

    All calls for “equal access” then devolve into a plea from practitioners for more money. For treatments that don’t work?

    There is an implication in most such commentaries that the existence of a system is inevitable and that it must be serving someone. But why assume that? At this point I am quite convinced that this is one system that we would all do better without.

  • So, the conclusion is that most researchers in this field are liars? This is what I would have expected, though doesn’t change the fact that it is a sad commentary on the field and on modern life in general.

    This reminds me of what happened to Transactional Analysis in the 1970s. Berne set forth a theory that was uniquely interesting and a method that should have been easy to learn. But no one wanted to do it his way. By the early 1980s there were almost no TA practitioners left, and the one I found wanted me to buy his book on his method.

    If each therapist does something different, then you can never test whether any particular therapy works, because there is no standard that any practitioner is bound to adhere to. So you can never find out what – if anything – works. A perfect plan for complete obfuscation and avoidance of the scientific method. This irresponsibility is part of the legacy of this subject.

  • OK: Foucault. “Foucault’s theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge, and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions.” – to quote Wikipedia, the ever-handy arbiter of “truth.”

    Foucault is being pointed to (at least by critics) as one of the important theoreticians behind what has come to be known as “identity politics” and a range of other unconventional political tactics and policy ideas that we have seen play out in recent months, including such bizarre theatrics as the two months of violence in Portland, and “diversity” policies in companies and colleges leading to the firing of several people for, basically, voicing their opinions.

    I see those who follow Foucault and his ilk as attempting to lead society in a more chaotic and disoriented direction than what it already suffers from.

    From Rose: “The general lesson is that you should never look for origins, never ask ‘why’, but instead ask, ‘how did this occur?'” Does this strike anyone else as odd? The basic idea behind this school of thought is that all knowledge is relative to the function it serves. And there is an implication that no creation-point or origin-point for any knowledge actually exists, that all knowledge is basically just expedient propaganda.

    From Rose: “We are in a very primitive state with brain interventions.” What exactly is he implying here? That psychiatry is basically correct, but is still too primitive to do most of us any good? Really?

    Again: “The conflicts are not a problem; contest and argument are how things develop.” He follows the idea that all ideas and processes arise out of conflict. That social conflict is vital to the creative process.

    On understanding psychiatry: “We must collaborate with psychiatrists from the point of view of critical friendship to understand how they think, to question them, and the weaknesses in their evidence and arrive at alternatives.” Why is he advocating this? Is this a requirement of the theories he believes in, or does he have other purposes for maintaining this “critical friendship?”

    Rose is basically a brain boy: “Brain research has made fantastic progress over the last 30 years.” He thinks that if we switch our approach to his way of thinking, we will get better answers.

    I am not a brain boy. I don’t want to be criticized for asking “why?” And the idea that knowledge is only created to suit the needs of power is useless to me if this means that knowledge not suited to the needs of power will continue to be ignored. I think real knowledge has a utility that transcends the short-term requirements of societies and their politics; that it can serve to elevate the individual to a place where politics are much less important.

    Foucault came out of a time of deep intellectual apathy (nihilism in philosophy). While in some higher esoteric world, the concepts of the nihilists might apply, in this world they are ridiculous. They skirt the basic “laws” of human experience in ways that are dangerous and arrogant. They assume that the fate of the individual is to be consumed by the society he is a part of.

    The “rationality” behind these schools of thought are complex and seductive. Rose, for example, seems to have some “right answers” about psychiatry. Yet he also seems to have some very wrong answers to life. If you want to live in a world where no one ever has to agree with anyone else, because “conflict creates knowledge,” then go with Rose and Foucault. I will attempt to continue to remind myself that we are living on Earth, not in Fairyland, and that we need games consisting of purposes, freedoms, and barriers, not endless chaos and criminality.

  • Perhaps we can “make friends” with some politicians and change their minds. This seems to be what psychiatry and Big Pharma has done.

    The only other choice is to – very publicly – make the whole system appear as corrupt as it really is so that its base of popular support eventually erodes away completely. They will have only about 2% of the public left supporting them – the true criminals of this world.

  • Psychiatry already knows it can do nothing about the real criminals (chief among those, the ones known as having Anti-Social Personality Disorder). They admit to this in many popular articles. I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole concept of the “criminal mind” disappears from the DSM completely if and when it is revised again. And then they will be able to say, “we were wrong – there is no such thing.”

  • From what I know, the situation is as you state.

    Psychiatry is always in search of new populations that can be convinced to embrace their treatments.

    Most of the “educated” world now laughs at the idea that psychiatry might NOT be have the highest level of expertise in the field of “mental health.” And so research and state policies continue to bend in their favor.

    For me, it has come down to the need for an entire reorientation at a grassroots level. We can still fight against bad policy. But it seems the majority of policy makers have fallen for the psychiatric narrative. After all, the mind IS in the brain, is it not?

    It isn’t. But who is willing to believe that? It starts with those who already realize something is wrong.

  • Yes, this is the primary problem with their reasoning. Bless them for noticing that “psychiatry’s resistance to viewing these conditions as adaptations to adversity may be an example of psychiatry serving ‘the interests of the powerful over the powerless.'” But this smacks, frankly, of the new “critical theory” viewpoint of life and living, which overall has proven to be quite mindless.

    How much longer must we wait for broken academics to figure out a “problem” that has largely already been solved? I know that my belief that is has been solved is not widely shared, but this does remain my belief. And at the core of the academic problem is its fixation on biology and evolution. That is like giving an artist a palette with yellow and red paint on it and then asking him to make a realistic image of a tree. “Where is my blue?” he should complain. Instead he insists there must be a way to arrive at the color green starting only with the colors red and yellow. Good luck with that!

    Oddly, another article posted here just a few days ago, “Do We All Need Tinfoil Hats?…” was picked up by someone in a Facebook group that I am a member of. It’s the same problem there. They are like those cave dwellers in that story by Plato, who refused to go outside to see what was there, as they had become so accustomed to living in a cave that they no longer wished for anything different.

    Walk out of the cave and look around! The air is fresh! (Unless you live down wind from a forest fire). The flowers are full of bright colors! And the basic questions of the mind and spirit have been confronted and answered!

  • This is a very thorough piece of work, and I confess I could not make myself read the whole thing carefully.

    But to me it tells a story of criminality that runs deep in this system. And it raises the question: Do we really need the incentive of high profits to create good medicines? Or is this incentive more likely to lead people to lie, cheat, and kill?

    Though I turned away decades ago from the idea that some sort of anti-capitalist upheaval could result in a more ethical and less criminal society, the track record of the profit motive has included many dismal failures. My feeling is that any actual ethical “mental health” system would team up with a system of justice to identify the real criminals of society and restrain them from acting out their delusions on the population at large. If that could be accomplished, even if only partially, we would be on the right track, and ordinary people who the system currently labels “mentally ill” would be free to go about their lives with much less harassment from the truly sick.

  • First off, I don’t know a thing about schizophrenia, except for the fact that psychs use the term to describe someone who is “really crazy.” Give me a break! Since when do I trust a (crazy) psych to tell me who’s crazy?

    However, I know quite a bit (not as much as some) about ET. This is mostly a problem of how much time you have to expose yourself to the material and evaluate it. Over the last ten years, I had quite a lot of time. But I came into the subject already knowing: that past lives are real, that the core personality is immortal, and that most humans are trapped here because of naughty things they did (like trying to be honest) on other planets.

    I recently had an email exchange with an academic who works on the “problem” of Fermi’s Paradox (one of those fake academic problems that only exists because of their own unwillingness to look) who was unwilling to talk to me about this beyond saying that he thought that the “hiding” theory was illogical. This guy obviously didn’t know much about why and how some people hide. He was trying to see a psycho-political problem as simply a problem of scientific observation techniques.

    This is an interesting example of how academics limit themselves for specious reasons. There is a similar problem (and relevant, since the two problems are closely related), regarding our topic, “mental health.” All the data I had learned that applied to ET was obtained in the quest for improving mental health. And yet, even among those who know damn well psychiatry is wrong, most are not willing to LOOK at what other relevant data has already been discovered and how it might be applied to creating a better approach to mental health. Very few people. So, this is how we limit ourselves. This is how we think we are boxed in a corner, when actually there is a door right there, cracked open and just waiting for us to walk through.

    It has been an amazing experience for me to see how easy it is for people to blind themselves, even on an intellectual level when there shouldn’t be that much liability to going “outside the box.” I have been told it stems from an implanted fear of knowing too much. What a shame!

  • I am seeing a stridency in the mainstream that I’m not seeing with other sources. Also, there seems to be more than two “sides.” There are two sides that battle it out almost totally on the basis of whether Trump is good or bad. Then there is at least one other “side” that is trying to be more sensible about things. I try to find those guys. I can’t stand the strident attack dogs which we currently call “the left” but occasionally look at “pro Trump” people to see if they have anything sensible to offer. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. It’s too bad. I used to find the “liberal” sources tolerable. But that was 40-50 years ago. I can’t stand them now.

  • I’m Larry. Well, we do know where you stand on all this pandemic stuff, don’t we?
    What I’m trying to do is connect this to how we got sold on psychiatry and the current “model of care” (drugs). It should be noted that the same communication lines (TV and mainstream media) have been used for both that sales pitch, and the one trying to sell us on masks, etc. In both cases, an extreme lack of willingness to examine all available data has been demonstrated. And a certain radicalization based on fear has resulted. Both of these propaganda campaigns, in their day, seemed sensible and in society’s best interests. But the total failure of that earlier campaign to produce beneficial results, along with other coverups along the way, and the general tone of the media, has totally ruined it for me as a possible trusted source. I absolutely cannot trust the data and solutions it presents which have added up to little more than the promotion of a slave society. If one wishes to pick and choose between “sensible” and ridiculous content on those communication lines, be my guest. I won’t do it.

  • Interesting video! You get to watch him riding through Pittsburgh while he talks!
    One of the oddest things I found on this subject was a site that was publishing data about this disease based on information received in late November of 2019. Totally under the radars of almost everyone, of course. But interesting that someone seemed to know about it that early.
    This seems incredibly off-topic but I think it relates somehow to the whole plan that resulted in the current “mental health” system.

  • Yes, Steve, it is a big stretch. But we have some opinion and some studies (mostly older studies I believe) on the importance of facial expressions in human communication and in child development. On top of that, mask wearing expresses, to some extent, a desire to hide the wearer’s emotions and true feelings or intentions – or simply identity in the case of robberies. We have experience with how psychiatry has been elevated in this world out of all proportion to its results. I judge that the result of a “conspiracy,” don’t you? What lengths will they go to to cow us, make us feel humiliated? I would not for a moment dismiss the possibility that masks are a part of that. And I am inclined to believe they are.

  • These arguments might move me if I had not been touched, with my friends, by what damage can be done through a barrage of “reasonable” lies. Live and learn. “Conspiracy” is real, and has been since long before the word was used to defame those who had found one where the conspirators, now more able to control the narrative, could not tolerate one to be found (JFK). Are you not familiar with the history of Rome? How many emperors were murdered by their own Praetorian Guard? And so it goes.

  • I know you have written extensively about your case on this forum. I haven’t followed it all, but it seems a bit complex.
    I know the main website gives people the opportunity to report their case in some detail if they wish. I don’t know how many cases they are able to assist on an individual level.

  • The point has been made to me many times that psychiatry creates the vast majority of the ills they blame society for. They are there to create a situation that will justify their existence. There is considerable evidence that if their practices were all terminated, many social problems, quite beyond what we call “mental illness” would largely disappear.

  • The challenge is to start educating oneself outside the box of mainstream science and technology. That’s all I mean by that. I don’t care about couching it in terms like “awakening.” And I don’t want to threaten anyone that things will go bad for them if they remain ignorant. But there is a lot to know that the mainstream is not telling us that we should really be talking more about.

  • Exactly my concern.
    Are psych meds really the only ones we are being misled about?
    Is the “science” that psychiatry uses to justify its atrocities the only “science” that we should be concerned about?
    I don’t see how someone could have it both ways.
    If our institutions are being corrupted, then they are being corrupted. That brings every institution involved into question, on every subject it is involved with.
    Perhaps that concept is just a little too overwhelming for some people. I know if I hadn’t decided to change course while I was still a teenager, and had gone into the system in a big way like my sister or brother, I would have a lot harder time disconnecting from it now. I know they do!

  • Spirit, calm yourself and remind yourself of what your name means. A being thrives on freedom. Courage counts for something now and it always will. Don’t forsake the many who want to be happy. I’m sorry if you get hurt. You wouldn’t be the first and certainly would not be the last. I could get hurt, too, but I support those who value freedom and renounce slavery. That is the direction of happiness.

  • In a just society, torturers would come to understand the depths they had descended to, make up for all the damage the best they could, and be reluctantly allowed to keep the streets clean (or some such task). But yes, for now, they should at least be restrained from doing even more damage.

  • Caroline’s difficulties in understanding some of these issues are clear in this article, and shared by many others. That it seems implausible, or even arrogant, to offer myself or my data as a source of “better” understanding doesn’t stop me from trying.

    The overall situation is obviously related to the problems we have and have had in understanding ourselves and each other. That a more “spiritual” approach is indicated is not clear to many, but it is to me. And of course, the most basic understanding, in that case, would be that we are in fact spiritual beings. Unfortunately, this understanding puts a lot more power and responsibility on our shoulders than most of us are comfortable with. That, however, is the correct starting place.

    Although a better understanding of the mind as a mechanism leads immediately to a more effective mental therapy and general approach to life, one soon enough discovers the more basic truth about personality. So I like to lead with it, even though it is a large conceptual step for many.

    From this basic comes better understandings of how politics and social interactions work in general, and how important it is, in particular, to guard ourselves from the poisoning of these relationships by people who are seriously “unwell,” the true criminals. It is ironic that they have convinced us that the only criminals are petty thieves and drug pushers and the truly “dangerous” are the mentally ill, when they are themselves the major cause of most of the bad experiences we run into in life, including petty crime and “mental illness.”

    Thus we have before us the obvious need for a self-education campaign. Such data is continuously fought against as “pseudo science” or “fraud.” If you as an individual are not able to rise above the avid craving for social acceptability that is currently being pushed by the latest generation of the criminally insane, then you will not be ale to benefit from the understandings that are – at this very moment – available to you.

    I don’t expect a flood of people to take on this challenge. But I would expect a few to be willing – out of desperation if no other reason. So far I have found very very few.

  • This is as an appropriate place as any to re-state my group’s position on this matter.
    The mental health system as it exists now should be abolished. Psychiatry should go with it.
    But that doesn’t mean there should be no one to turn to when one is suffering at home or at school, or has become dependent on drugs.

    Psychiatry – and many psychiatrists – wants to save itself for the “right” reasons. Because they got into the profession to help people… and the profession pays so well! It’s a moral conundrum few of them can really deal with. And then of course, there are the closet Nazis.

    Those of us who have been immersed in this issue longer than I have – since the 1970s – are quite clear about this: Psychiatry has to go. There is no redemption, no set of “reforms” that would be adequate to justify its continuance. But while we have identified psychiatry as the central strategy that criminal elements rely on to advance their dominance on the world stage, we also know that existing as it does in a larger context of harm and criminal intent, it cannot be defeated by any sort of ordinary campaign or “war.”

    Our basic strategy is to expose it and undermined all public support for it. We started with obvious vulnerabilities like abuses and treatments that don’t work. You’d think that would be enough, but they have on their side a very irrational fear of “going crazy” which they have continued to play on to maintain their position.

    While my group in general will continue to concentrate on the most obvious abuses, it is clear that more work is needed in the direction of demystifying the mind, how it works, what can go wrong with it, and what to do about it. In my work, I attempt to run out ahead of this coming educational effort with basic data and reassurances to those who know something is terribly wrong and something should be done about it that they are right about that, and that something can indeed be done about it.

    I am not particularly interested in sticking to the paradigm of “modern psychology” that is used by psychiatry to justify the use of awful practices like ECT and dangerous “medicines.” That’s where I differ from the academics on this site. They think that better data lies just around the next research corner. That we just need a few more studies in this direction and in that direction, and the whole subject will begin to clarify. Who are they trying to fool? Though others may have the patience to suffer such ignorance or self-aggrandizement, I don’t. The choices are right in front of everyone’s faces if they just care to look. I can’t make them look, but I can assume that if they refuse to look, their “expert opinions” can be thoroughly ignored.

  • All the more reason, it seems to me, to decouple the treatment model from research about causes. See, I don’t think most psychiatrists think they are trying to “fix the brain.” I think most psychiatrists are just trying to look like doctors. Their self-image and social image is much more important to them than fixing anything! Meanwhile, psychiatrists who have moved beyond that, like Kelly Brogan, are building real relationships with the people who come to them for help, and are really helping them. (She doesn’t use drugs, ever, as most here should be aware.) Kelly has spoken to the “medical model” of treating any illness, which is one reason I bring it up. Although research into causes should inform us and should inform doctors, we should all become more aware of the limitations of the medical model of treatment, whatever words we use for the complaint that resulted in the person requesting treatment.

  • I realize a lot of commenters here want the whole concept of “mental illness” to just go away. But it will likely survive in some form for the foreseeable future. I know most doctors who want to treat the mind are currently very fond of drugs and surgeries and things like that. But there are a few – just a few – who are a lot closer to having it right. And they are just as busy as other psychiatrists. We have to admit, I think, that there is a demand for services in this area. And this demand is not just from miscreants who want to get people they don’t like locked up or “legally” killed.

    I know that people here see how the “illness” concept feeds into the “medical model” of care. But if we can decouple that care model from the research on causes, it would be helpful. That research (as misguided or self-serving as much of it is) does relate to a real demand for real solutions. The indicated model of care is NOT medical, although it’s always good to get a checkup, maybe even some blood work, if you’re feeling “off.” The model of care that is helping people involves nutrition, life choices, and strengthening of core spiritual abilities. For the people getting real help, whether someone decides what brought them to seek help was an “illness” or a “disorder” or a “condition” or an “experience” doesn’t matter that much to them. The point is that real research, done by well-intended researchers, actually resulted in a desired outcome for them.

    Those who embrace the “medical model” of treatment are trying to hide that research and its good results from the rest of us. They certainly support the term “illness,” although they use the term “disorder” in the DSM now. But I think we need to keep these two areas decoupled, because I think we will see at some point that the correct causes for many “real” illnesses will also involve nutrition, life choices, and core spiritual abilities. I think we are going in the direction of ditching the “medical model” of treatment for many “illnesses” of the body, as well as all “illnesses” of the mind.

  • The watchdog groups try to monitor various practitioners and facilities, but depend on formal reports to see what is going on. If they get enough cases pointing at a particular doctor or facility, they can start to make noise about that target and focus media attention on the doctor or facility. This can’t be done without reports.

    It has been our long experience that internal reporting processes are ineffective if not actually dangerous. Watchdogs can use reports to focus on the worst offenders even if you don’t want to personally get involved in that part of the activity.

  • What an interesting story. I, too have sailed through periods of unemployment without feeling much discontent. I found ways to stay “productive” from my own point of view.

    But for many, employment defines their lives. And we do, after all, need a fair number of people to be productive or the community could not afford the charity that keeps children, old people, and the sick, alive. Even so, it helps the child to “have things to do,” and likewise it helps our elders and everyone in between. What point is there to life without something to do?

  • Being a “dictionary nut” I just want to put forward that I don’t see any immediate evidence in my dictionary that the medical sense of the word “symptom” is the original, basic, or “literal” meaning of the word. From my point of view, it is one of many many general English words that have been co-opted by medicine over the years to the point where many don’t realize that it ever had a broader meaning.

    That “mental health” professionals see what they are looking at as mental illnesses that have symptoms that assist in diagnosis is obvious, but I think largely imposed on them with the help of the incredible marketing job that medicine has done, over hundreds of years really, that captured the hearts and minds of the general population on the subject of how life works. All that psychiatry had to do was hitch their oxcart to this wagon train. Embodied in this concept is a process that is used by technicians, engineers and scientists, not just doctors. But those other fields must take it a step further. They need to find root cause, or at least get closer to it. Because people and the human body are so good at repairing themselves, doctors have been able to get away with not taking that final step. But that kills the workability of psychiatric drug and surgical treatments entirely.

    It goes without saying that you can’t learn psychology by reading the DSM; that’s not what it’s for. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to learn the fundamentals of human psychology even after you study it for two or four years, and even less possible if you are being trained to be a doctor. The subject deserves to be better understood. It underlies everything.

  • Hi Steve. My viewpoint is that whenever a doctor tells you what he thinks is the right treatment for you, he’s engaged in marketing. He needs your “buy in.” If he lies to you in doing that, because he somehow sees his own personal financial outcomes as more important than your personal health outcomes, he’s simply being unethical. We have a huge problem with ethics in medicine. It is acute in the “mental health” sphere, but if it didn’t also exist in “regular” medicine, psychiatry would have been kicked out of the profession a long time ago.

  • “Stigma” is an interesting word. It has a meaning within the “mental health community” that I’m not sure I even understand. Originally, it simply meant something obvious about you that gave you a certain identity. Like needle marks on your arm would brand you as a former drug addict. Now we see it used in connection with having a criminal record, or bad grades in school. Or getting a “mental illness” diagnosis.

    But it is often used in the context of having the effect of someone not seeking “care” when they should. The mental health system wants to remove “stigma” to get more customers! That’s what really matters to them.

    The language used by these authors is so dense and (to me) insincere, that it is unclear to me what they are really talking about. My guess is that they just want more patients.

  • This Dalglish quote caught my eye: “We must move quickly, for our own security, beyond the rhetoric of equality to the reality of a more democratic, more multipolar, more networked, and more distributed understanding and operation of global health.” It’s “for our own security” that interested me. Who is “us?” It turns out that the article had a national security context. In fact, pandemics and public health responses to them have had a military/security component since the time of the use of bioweapons (mostly in the form of infected rats) in the first World War.

    This military/political component has been either a hidden or explicit goal of many efforts of the West to make the rest of the world more livable. The reasoning being, I suppose, that if people are happy where they are living, then they will not turn their sights towards the West with feelings of envy or retribution. Moreover, if they become dependent on “helpful” technologies produced by large multinational corporations, they might be less likely to “bite the hand that feeds them.”

    And so you get an article such as this one that was quoted. How sincere is it really? Hard for me to say. But it seems to me the emphasis is to impose our will while at the same time “being nice” to poor countries and realizing “how much we can learn” from them. The goal remains “global health.”

    Though the editors of The Lancet gave lip service to the drawbacks of “technocratic solutions,” they didn’t actually advocate that such activities should be abandoned. They certainly advocated for a change in messaging – in their marketing approach – to stay on friendly terms with the “poor.”

    On this planet, doctors are, in fact, widely acceptable across many continents and cultures. I don’t think the “global mental health” system has any intention of changing that. And if the past can in any way predict future probable behaviors, then the system will go forward with its economic and political agendas regardless of outcomes on the ground, or how they affect the lives of real people. Really, they can’t be bothered.

  • I’ve enjoyed this series because I run into these expressions – used out of context or without any real appreciation for what they mean – and I often wonder if it bothers anyone else as much as it bothers me.

    It’s funny also because in their original contexts these statements made sense. Out of context, they can be seen as horrendously dispassionate or invalidating. Why can’t people tell the difference? They either lack basic social intelligence or they seek to undermine you by covert means. When you get crap like this thrown in your direction, it is wise to see if you can tell where the one who spoke it is really coming from. It might not be from a very good place.

    The “comfort zone” phrase is for people who are already high achievers and aren’t satisfied. Athletes, performers, executives. They chose the game of excelling and they have to deal with its down sides as well as it rewards.

    “What doesn’t kill you…” seems a bit mindless, but fits the same mindset as above. Some of these people have taken incredible risks with their own lives or health to prove to themselves they could survive. Not all of us want to go there, or need to.

    The “middle ground” approach is an incomplete concept. Without extremes, moderation makes no sense. In some contexts, extremes may be appropriate.

    “I’m sorry..” is an artifact of an imperfect language. It can mean an apology OR it can be used to dismiss a bad reaction because the speaker doesn’t care how you react. You can complain that people use it, but really, I’m sorry to say, it’s probably not going away any time soon.

  • I want to address some of these “talking points.” I wish we could really talk! Written comments with a 30 minute lag for moderation are a far cry from a real conversation.

    I live at the outskirts of this “system.” I have been trained in various types of treatments, have worked a little as a volunteer in disaster recovery situations and have some limited experience as a treatment provider. I am trained on theories of etiology, but mostly within my own frame of reference.

    Point 1. Not quite. There are more than two models of care, and more than two models of etiology.
    However, I don’t think the “medical model” has ever been serious as an etiology. It is a marketing ploy for the purpose of selling psychiatry and the drugs they prescribe to the general public. It has no place, really, in the field of mental health, as it attempts to rebrand this as a problem of physical health, which it obviously isn’t. The “medical” model has been totally abused by psychiatry, but we should understand that it is abused by regular medicine as well. MDs have been working hard for years to shut out non-drug forms of treatment from the benefits of “health” insurance coverage. MDs want to get paid! They want this, apparently, much more than they want a healthy population. This is a sign of creeping immorality in this profession, as has been seen in many professions, and in academia. It cannot and should not be overlooked. It is a very important aspect of the problem.

    To elaborate briefly, there are several nutritional models, several traditional “medical” models of care, including ones from the East, and there are a variety of spiritual models of care. These models cover both mental and body problems. Some models see the two spheres as closely-related, not really separable.

    Point 2. I don’t think this is important, as mentioned above. Neither model really addresses etiology. They are treatment models, and as an extension, income models and class models, you could say. You would expect a treatment to have some connection to etiology (causes), but I don’t think either model seriously addresses this, nor is intended to. “The system” doesn’t care that much about root causes. It cares a lot about levels of income and hierarchy.

    Point 3. I can’t speak to. I haven’t read the reports. But it makes sense that the “social work” model (as I might call it) would have better outcomes, as it is more patient-oriented and less income-oriented. People respond to being cared about. This is a basic truth I have been taught.

    Point 4. The whole culture of academia and “reports” is part of a management system that is worried about money flows and political power a lot more than about real outcomes for real people. Any intervention that actually results in a person “getting better,” becoming more independent in mind and body, is a threat to the system, which thrives (or so it seems) on dependency. I am not saying that a non-criminal system would see things this way. But we cannot assume non-criminal intentions for the current system!

    Point 5. Predictably. Point 6. Clearly so.

    Point 7. “Access to care” should read “caregiver access to funding.” Point 8. There you go.

    Point 9. Good for that model. I assume this is an open-and-shut case. The only “problem” with this model is that it doesn’t provide a sufficient income stream to those interested in being in charge.

    Point 10. You aren’t going to get a lot of “diplomacy” on this particular website. Lives are being ruined and lost. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money squandered on false solutions, all for the benefit of an arguably criminal elite. We only attempt “diplomacy” because of the power of their weapons, not because we really respect them.

  • Hidden at the top of this article is a key concept: These are “paradigms of care.”

    The “medical model” is a treatment model based on how medical doctors treat the things they are asked to treat – wounds from accidents, acute illnesses, chronic illnesses.

    The “social determinants model” is more of a social work approach to treatment.

    Neither of these models really address root cause (etiology). I think this confusion is rampant and is worth clarifying. Both models have problems with etiology. Both do! They are treatments models.

  • The world of biology is very caught up in genetics right now. That’s partly because they see behaviors transmitted from parents to children that can’t be accounted for as “learned” behaviors and therefore must be “genetic.” This conundrum is very real in biology and psychology. They need a better model for transmission of behaviors between generations and they don’t dare go in the direction their data is pointing to (mind separable from body).

    Yet, that is the best explanation. They just won’t go there. And that refusal has screwed things up for a long time now.

    I don’t care that much about “disorders” versus “illnesses” and all the problems of who decides what is “normal.” Those aren’t the major problem. A broken arm isn’t “normal.” Real problems of the mind and body aren’t that hard to see and aren’t that hard to agree with. The problem with psychiatry is in using a medical approach to a problem that clearly isn’t a medical problem. Psychiatrists are doctors because in the old asylums that’s all they could do for the “insane.” Amazingly, in the better asylums of those days, many patients recovered on nothing more than good food, good rest, and a calm environment. If psychiatrists had stayed with that plan, they’d be modern-day heroes. Instead, they face a dedicated effort to wipe their “profession” off this planet.

  • My understanding of the “medical” or “biological” model is that it was put forward completely and only for the purpose of putting psychiatrists on a par with other doctors. In other words, all medicine works on the basis that there is a body part that can get diseased, and that the indicated treatment should be a medical treatment (drugs or surgery) which is expected to result in patient recovery, except in the case of “chronic illness” which will require a “maintenance” treatment of some sort.

    Environmental factors are rarely considered in any branch of medicine; they just don’t see it as their role. Psychological stressors, nutritional stressors, economic limitations are minimized by all sectors of medicine. While we are willing to excuse ordinary MDs for this oversight (not all of us are), in the case of psychiatry this renders their “work” null and void.

    All of Medicine has problems with etiology. In “regular” medicine these problems do not result in their “treatments” being totally unworkable, whereas in psychiatry that is the result. All of Medicine has problems with malpractice. But only in psychiatry (until very recently) have those problems escalated to the level of civil rights abuses.

    Thus, we can “get away” with the biological etiology model in the case of “real” disease, but it utterly fails us – as patients – in the realm of mental health. Because it makes us think that the only solution to the problem is a drug (or surgery). For psychiatry this has been a terminal mistake. For the rest of medicine, it has stalled our progress, but not yet proved totally fatal.

  • The problem is that the truth arrives in the form of a message as well. Marketing is not by necessity deceptive. Though it often is by choice. Thus, we tend to distrust any message received on any marketing channel. And what other channels of communication exist between people? I do favor conversational content, as this tends to show more clearly whether or not the people involved are being sincere. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying to market ideas.

  • This is a well-spoken and very measured piece of writing.

    I would focus strongly on how this “case” got into the system: By being terrorized by someone who was involved in criminal activity. “…his now ex-wife enlisted others in the drug scene to spread the rumor that there was a contract out on NG’s life.”

    Events like this seldom get spotted in case histories. It was quite astute of this writer to include this, though he didn’t really know what to do with it. It should be noted that the police who arrested him didn’t look for this (you might call it a “trigger event”) nor did the “mental health” workers who he encountered. Yet this is the reason – most likely – that he panicked, and that panic was the only reason he got thrown into the system. And the source of that panic was criminal intent, not any of the “disorders” in the DSM.

    I hope readers see this clearly, because it is key to understanding the most common reason people get pushed “off balance” in this society. According to my data, this mechanism is the most important disruptive mechanism that exists in society, and it has been studiously avoided for all the decades since it was first clearly spotted by various modern researchers. Will we continue to overlook it?

  • I can see a situation (much like it is now) where even though the general public despised psychiatry, the state would maintain various mechanisms for pulling people into the system. A disrespect for basic human rights on the part of government.

    I can also see a situation where respect for basic human rights improves, though that doesn’t seem to be the road we’re on right now. This would involve, I can only imagine, some basic change in human awareness. In this case, something called “psychiatry” could continue to exist, but would bear no resemblance to what it is now. Such a society could decide to abolish the term, and reinvent the subject with some new name.

    Right now I see us still drifting (or being pushed) towards the former condition. I think we have the tools to achieve the latter condition, but widespread acceptance for them does not yet exist, thanks to the work of psychiatry and related criminal interests.

  • Yah. The gene-mind connection does not sit well with me, though. These guys see genes as the only possible mechanism for transmitting “intimate” data from one generation to the next, and I think that’s wrong. There is an odd difference between this model and the one I use which I’ll mention here.

    In the genetic model, the transmission occurs at the time of sexual reproduction. For humans, most of that happens in the younger years of a lifetime. Thus, we have no mechanism for transmitting data learned after the reproductive years are over. In my model, the data are transmitted out at death and then picked up again at birth (or copulation, roughly, for the physiological data). This provides for a wider amount of “learned” data to be transmitted to new organisms compared to a strictly genetic model of transmission.

    Of course there is learned data, transmitted by cultural processes, but we’re not dealing with that here, even though that could also have an influence on the mind. Almost anything can influence the mind!

  • I don’t know anything about these “therapies,” but I can imagine they might be similar to what I got, which basically consisted of giving me suggestions for changing my approach to life that made sense to me and that I was willing to try. If they are like that, even though they may “improve outcomes,” they don’t address basic cause at all. This is actually the “medical model” of treatment. You make the symptoms go away by patching up whatever got broken or killing some bugs, then you call it a “cure” and send the patient on his way.

    The problem with psychiatry (and more often now with regular MDs) is that they want to keep that income stream going as long as possible. This is done, ordinarily, by purposely ignoring basic (or “root”) cause, treating symptoms only, and when symptoms persist, just continue treating symptoms. So, if the choice is between some maintenance dose of some drug and a diet change or some other handling that would actually make the patient permanently more healthy, they are tending to choose the former over the latter.

    Thus we see this “treatment modality” (I hate that “speak”) being used WITH drugs. And we see the study focusing mainly on symptoms, though “therapy” should be capable of addressing root cause. The study bows to “long-term effectiveness” (14 months) but where are the 3-5-10 year follow-ups? How long ago was it that Freud started all this? Why do we have so meager results in all those years? I don’t think their hearts are really in it.

  • I personally think this trend is very dangerous.

    Psychedelic drugs are already known to cause some very disturbing effects, that can “replay” years after going off them.

    We should already be certain that drugs are the wrong way to go in this field. So this represents to me a casting about hoping to come up with yet more drugs to throw at us when the current patents start running out. It is very difficult for me to imagine that these researchers are sincere. Particularly when they hide behind all this conceptual fog.

  • I consider this subject off topic for this site, but I can’t blame Dr. Dhar for doing the best she could with it.
    I just want to state my current view on the “genetic mind,” as it is written about so much these days.

    I think Rupert Sheldrake may be the one academic person that gets close on this subject.
    But, I subscribe to the idea that each higher-level body (like most mammals) as well as lower-level communities of bodies (like bees) has a “mind” associated with it. The main thing this mind is responsible for is genetic expression, or getting all the little physical details of the body correct. But it also carries forward all the behavioral habits that each species is “born” with, and on top of that, it can “learn” and “think” (in an animal sort of way). So, as far as I’m concerned, whenever any scientist or academic talks about “genetic” traits, this animal mind is what they are actually, unwittingly, referring to. This is not the same mind that we humans use to think and remember, but it is what our bodies use to regulate the endocrine systems, etc., and to provide a baseline level of awareness when we get knocked out or badly hurt.

  • I should probably just stay out of this. These criticisms based on the DSM have furnished great talking points for the anti-psychiatry movement, and articles such as the one critiqued above have provided parallel talking points for the pro-psychiatry movement. But the fact is that this is not the central pillar on which anti-psychiatry stands. We object 1) to the harm being done and 2) to the failed promises, the blatant unwillingness to improve, and the endless make-wrong of all critics. We see what amounts to a criminal operation at work here, and we object to it. It goes without saying that criminals, exposed, will madly attempt to defend themselves. And arguing about the “medical model” gives them the perfect opportunity to do so.

    I wish we would expend our efforts more in the direction of identifying things that really work and promoting them widely. There will always be a few around trying to control the battle at a propaganda level, but the point is – isn’t it? – to save lives, not to win debates. If everyone knew that psych meds were dangerous and refused to take them, psychiatry wouldn’t have much to talk about. And if communities had better ways to handle people who seem a “little off” then psychiatrists would be forced to either become real doctors or leave the field (which is probably what most of them should do).

  • I’m happy to see that you’re interested in these issues.

    I think a lot of readers of this website and forum would agree with you. However, I am aware of the importance of the spiritual factor which most still discount.

    But even though this article was all about some work being done to understand psychology better, that’s not totally the point of this site. Most people here are more interested in the problem of how we get psychiatry off our backs, not in all the new and interesting ways they could develop to extend their unwelcomed stay even longer.

    Now, I actually think that one way to kick psychiatry out of the picture is for us to understand psychology better. And yes, there are some people working in the field that don’t get the attention they deserve. But the first one I think of is Ian Stevenson, not the brain boys or the neurologists or the sociologists or the functionalists. So we’re on a different page as far as that goes, but I’m used to that. Just trying to repeat my basic message and hope it gets across. Psychology: study of the psyche – soul, spirit, you know?

  • This website specifically concerns itself with the issue of “mental health” and how psychiatry tried to make us believe they had the answers then failed us.

    I just don’t want people to get all starry-eyed about systems theory and functional medicine when it comes to totally replacing what psychiatry promised it could do then failed to do.

    Because I don’t see the spirit, and a proper understanding of the spirit, front and center in that work, and I think it needs to be to fully resolve the problems that psychiatry currently helps society sweep under the rug.

    When the functional medicine people think they have this thing licked and are ready to take over completely from the psychs, I’d be all for it. But even though they may include a “spiritual” component in their work, they claim to be “science-based” and so far, science doesn’t include spirit. And I think any approach will ultimately miss the mark, especially in the field of mental health, if it does not give sufficient attention to the problems of the spirit.

  • Psychological theory is already quite aware of the interrelatedness of people, environmental poisons, economic stressors and so forth. The breakdown in treatment seems to be much more along the lines of politics and greed.

    But there is a more basic problem with the MD approach to “healing.” Regular docs tend to get away with this because most people only expect them to patch us up and send us on our way. Psychiatry wants to follow that same model. As I expressed it in another post, you don’t expect your doc to worry about why you broke your arm. You just expect your doc to fix your arm and send you home. The psychs want to work that same way. They don’t want to worry about why you got depressed. They just want to write a prescription and say goodbye. We think that’s being really irresponsible. They think they are doing what all other doctors do.

    In that sense, we would be better off without them, since their drugs don’t work. But in another sense, maybe we are just looking at the wrong profession for handling the more common “mental health” issues. People like social workers, even clergy or family members, are probably the ones who should be helping most people with “mental health” issues sort things out.

    Part of the problem with psychiatry is that a few people really do “go insane” or have “severe/acute episodes” or whatever they call it these days. And when that happens, family, police, regular MDs – no one – wants to deal with it. The behavior can be so strange that it freaks most people out. So the psychs stepped up centuries ago and said “give those guys to us.” They used to lock them up, experiment on them, and kill them. These days we expect better, and we object to psychs treating the whole world (except them!) as “crazy.” But the fact is that they fill a need in society, and I think that’s one reason why we are having such difficulties getting rid of them.

  • I’m impressed by your knowledge of what has been going on in research and treatment in this field. I hope you will continue to contribute what you know. But do keep in mind that what we have found to be the problem, first and foremost, in this particular field, is moral failure. If we are right about that (we might not be totally right) then better understandings and treatments will be rejected or ignored by mainstream psychiatry. That has been our most common experience up to this point.

  • I said, a human is not a “system.” I’m just emphasizing that there is an element of life that science has missed and that “systems theory” as you have described it will miss, too. It’s an important element when it comes to understanding “mental illness” and if we continue to neglect it, I don’t care how nuanced our approaches become, they will miss the mark because they are leaving something out that is fundamentally important.

    If systems theory included this element, it could include living things and humans in a way that would be much more beneficial. We know just from the ordinary English meanings of the words that individuals are parts of systems. So I’m just emphasizing that the “systems” concept in science (as far as I know) is missing an essential element that is preventing the simplification of our understanding of the human problem to the point where that understanding would be genuinely helpful.

    I know the current approach to treatment is broken.
    I know we need better understandings and better treatment practices. That is painfully obvious in the field of “mental health.”

    In your own case you never got proper physical tests. That sounds like malpractice to me. Doctors know that there are a variety of stressors that can add up to feeling depressed. They don’t skip the tests because they are ignorant (although they could be much better-trained). They skip thorough testing because they are lazy and/or greedy. That’s not a problem with theory, that’s an ethics problem. Lots of psychs make the excuse that they “don’t understand the causes of mental illness” well enough yet. Though it’s true, but they could do much better than they do now with no more than they know now. I think they suffer from a lack of will.

    That you were able to do so much for yourself is absolutely great and shows how crippled the “mental health” system has become. It sounds like you had a situation where mental factors were actually very minimal once many other factors were recognized. That’s the most common experience for the majority of people who get involved in the “mental health” system today.

    But there are some people in situations that they don’t know how to handle themselves. And the current system fails them not because it doesn’t appreciate the interrelatedness of things but because it has gone corrupt, greedy and uncaring. My point is that today the field is failing first and foremost because it has lost its moral compass (if it ever had one). Another way of saying it is that even if you established a more robust theoretical framework for the causes and treatments of “mental illness” a lot of these doctors would not use it because their level of ethical thought is too low.