Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Comments by travailler-vous

Showing 100 of 623 comments. Show all.

  • Hi Kelly, I run out of time to peruse your articles, but always get back to the gist of your purposes and philosophy of care in my own favor when things get most personal. Of course, this is the debate process all around for other folks publishing their encounters and theories often enough and I have to admit the fact every time! That said, I just wanted to say one basic thing regarding some of your first introduced points of departure on alternative, holistic views on recovery.

    Reductive takes on history and sociology of behavioral healthcare can vary and stick to certain “developmental trait selections” as much as the people who cause adhesion to their virtually apocryphal character and subspecies their arrangements lead to us in outpatient support settings. Years and years of unsorted dead weight on the front burners of half-hearted (“undecided” patient vs. chemotherapist intestate questioner- advocates) critics like we have too many of, so far. Thanks for keeping it very realistic and for the economy of your approach to the series of debates that constitute the field from your vantage point on our usually gratutious and soporrific care options.

  • Hi Frank, Have you ever read some explanation applied to inferences and structured arguments, so that you ran across the term “this explains too much at once”…? This is pretty much the crosshairs of your various forays into cause and effect, proof and disproof, iconoclasm, etc.

    I am sort of getting affected by everyone’s separate disposition in equal measure. Did enjoy your caveats and “medicine show” run through of how bad notions are infectious, again.

  • Thanks, Lauren. I was wondering about this constant and undeniable malfeasance, the truly unoriginal, unAmerican, and unmedical nature of this stupidity, the new lady doctor who is riding high in the saddle to support her stupid promotion of ECT, etc.

    This seems clear: we survivors know that we sometimes have faced real problems with the reliability of our perceptions, our levels of energy and concentration, our clarity and sense of purpose, or further on battles with confidenc and episodic or longstanding incapacitation. We try to see who can help, and find more advertisers than healers, more quacks than normal doctors, more henchman than careful nurses. The whole situation is altogether disgusting, still.

    Maybe we should think about trying to decide how problems in living (or perhaps mental problems, if we speak very generally) can resolve into specific patterns so that we can work with levels of concrescence, ineptitude, and incapacitation, but not “front the label” or take psych drugs “under oath”. I mean just use them as seems wise and responsible or good to experience for ourselves, as we could determinately have enjoyed some relief or help from them in something like PRN doses.

    That’s just context, though, because what I want to say is that mental dysfunction, behavioral dysfunction, and neurological dysfunction and gross malfeasance are rampant in the care providers and regulators much more than ever. They are such obvious losers, who just themselves can’t settle into tracks for discussing their own issues and then share the information with everyday people who might not like to become so involved with the industry, but want it good for the needs it supposedly cares to address.

    All you can find across the country in these professions are people who cluster together with their bizarre personal hang-ups, get totally self-involved, and then gravitate to expanding the police state atmosphere, enlisting the typically hoodwinked and unenlightened among law enforcement, the elitist and bigoted among the judiciary, all manner of self-absorbed idealists who have their one-size fits all philosophies and no other way of life in mind. Complete and total moral cowards and religious hypocrites, failures and busybodies, impolite and passive-aggressive plebes is what these AMA suck-ups and abusers are.

  • Jay,

    You’ve got good territory assigned to the needs and purposes of this feminist take on relating facts to material differences, and coming out of the forays one fast swoop at a time. I mean, of course, that you stand to represent sanity for how it splinters and announces the turning point in emerging viewpoints, mindful of however they have unhelpfully turned in upon themselves and started into aggrandizing points of commonality much too soon. Since you invite thematic takes on all the “vital signs” you detect, and let the diagnoses roll off the tip of your tongue, you definitely have issued your very articulate challenge and stung hard at the middle of the rollicking fanatical insiders.

  • Hi Dr. Brogan,

    Your refinement of approaches to terms and their referents is getting polished up, alright. And I hope it is paying in your private experiences, so you might keep determining the sticking points involved in getting difficult folks to accept responsibility for the things that happened to themselves, already. We definitely need to get on with our moments of recovery in steps and stages that include procedural acts of normalization in light of the reduced efficacy in our circumstances, once we suffer disfranchisement that complicates some psychosocial incapacitation. Obviously, you are proffering certain methods that you linger on more than others, and want your fellows in the allied mental health services to buck up their own standards of conduct from turning over the significant points of comparison and contrast, aiming at strategies that surpass causal theories of representation. Patients need to take their recovery opportunities as the chance to put their past, and any diagnostic labels they “got told”, into the hour glass dimension necessary for suiting the transitional perspectives that will align them in perfect measure with that completely arbitrary series of documentations. Pure pathognomic doxology deserves less than the time of day, really, of course. I want you to run the pharmaceutical houses, here, too, when you get the equipment and plans approved through Bob W.

  • Richard,

    Left to his own, he’s high. Then he kills it and gets deplored at the serious side of his luck here on earth. Has he got some neat talk of how to hit the pasture for his way around the lane to the old green slag, maybe, watched on the side roads for the hours it takes against his finders fees? What the gene, what the spinnerette, what the value system. What and who-what-when…: he needs his tram one weather vane each person, in times.
    Socialist table lease on loan man, all the diet you need to jam in that say.

  • Robert– Dr. Francis is for doctors and their extra-judicial, mealy-mouthed authority, more than he means to alert the press that the knowledge base for his backwards profession has to keep getting independently sorted out. Such as aside from ECT and psychosurgery staying famously unquestioned by the popular in-crowd for managing media representation of APA positions. Why can’t he grow up about that practical need?

  • Renee, What a loser your bad news counsellor was and is. We see the same thing around here all the time with our church and community mental health program padding each others’ collection plates, if they can help it. I sympathize with your long slog. Obviously, the purpose of doctors here are to recruit folks into working on their whole reputation and caseload, rules and definitions of disorders not excepted. They want you to validate them emotionally, physically, financially, and then burn the bridges with your other supportive folks who aren’t total conformists to their closed chambers sales routines and lock-up ward malfeasance ploys. You finally get away and can be sure to find them right back in your face in their other snookery manifestations…just waiting to wear you down and test you some more.

  • Dr. O., I was trying to warm to “the whole point of surviving”, and hadn’t gotten totally up to the point of where my thinking began and my emotions ended in this wordy rejoinder. I mean what it says, but hadn’t gotten a grip yet for the day…. Oh well. I appreciate that you reply above recommending your interesting sounding book. My point right here is just that my need isn’t tremendous or burdensome to me at the moment, and getting into the history and some points on method in neuroscience was what led me to try concentrating on my reaction to your well worded piece. That had actually been my ulterior motive…, so be sure to have a good day!

  • Hi Dr. Olfman, I was glad you put in the strongest voices right off the bat. Jay Joseph really gets the point of the wilful unreason connected to the built-in gene-to-mental-defect route to the diagnostic guarantee of eternity in forced treatment options for schizophrenic-labelled “others”. Dr. Wilson’s words are revealing as well. The problem with the logic is plain as day from these two pioneers: you can’t mince your words about genetic misfortune, in order to promise ahead of real world evidence, that behavioral dysfunction means that your gene theory rules out the positive opportunities of capable nurturing and socialization efforts for anyone. You can’t, therefore, legitimately and humanely suggest that some genetic marker for “mental illness” renders appeals to the importance of post-natal development meaningless, tout court.

    But then it’s too bad that McGilchrist musses up the popularization of brain research with the ill-predicated materialist despcription of brains that think and know, the mainstay in misguided “naturalism” these days toward the paternalistic, socialistic one-size fits all toning down of the problem with psychiatric oppression outright. Although he might not be out to get us one by one, many neuro- and psychologists standing patiently between us as individuals who need empowered and the golden-egg tenures and extrajudicial authority that we need completely discredited, will use this mistaken logic to excuse “error and excess” as they surely hope to do. This sort of malfeasance is as backwards as McGilchrist’s seemingly enlightened language, which definitely helps it along.

    Then, too, it’s too bad again that we still have to rely on the insouciant adhesion of neo-Freudians like Fromm, outdated as he is as well…another throwback to the Harry Stack Sullivan and then ludicrously inauthentic Robert Cole days of the championing of all means of squelching the debate over the decripitude and malfeasance of the institutional and AMA/APA/APA bureacratized “final solutions”. If the dangerous possibility of censuring the establishment types for blaming the victim and padding their budgets with auto-pay customers all the while came up, that was the fine chance to publish their next neat title. Good critical theorist Herbert Marcuse really helped us look again at the viability of the talking cure in more mature terms, you know? He decried the sentimentality of these very follow the leader types.

    Thanks for all the work you put into your interpretation, however. I very much appreciate that you keep yourself available for survivors, here on MIA. Hopefully, some more of the networking will gain traction here that goes with careproviders who are willing to distinguish matter of factly between two very different sets of needs and purposes: social engineering in response to malingering and moral mischief, and literal suppression of the awareness due the name Patient Advocacy. That would certainly help the inegalitarian mindset to die off, which would be great if it happened to get us all past ruminating unsystematically on past master “reformers”, with their heydays and miraculous espousals, that never were really anything more than shots at halfway truthful, not exactly cutting edge advocacy. Are you planning to speak at any of the year’s upcoming service-provider or gov/NGO conventions?

  • Margaret, Your article is very effective for representing the moments of empathetic connection beyond your description of it. I got inspired by the careful restatement of the facts of this awakening to sense of self in respect of other minds and reasonings than will necessarily in every regard FEEL for this newer, little person’s own one. That demonstrative approach makes it easy to turn to your own life history and reflect on the true regard in which you know of empathy as serving you, and as coming to mean the right way to resilience only as some hard won insights bring its ultimate value into perspective. Many things here connected to the original developments of Bob Whitaker’s critique of psychiatry here, too, it seemed, and extended the relevance of the opportunity to learn from the comments to your article. Specifically, the general mood of criticizing patients and teachers and families for “denying facts of disorder” on the one hand, and then coaxing them into denial about the loss of control over normal life choices with coercive arrangements for administering drugs and extending treatment plans to infinity. Refusing to acknowledge the totally experimental nature of these monolithic treatment protocols just is not professional “helping”.

  • Truth in Psychiatry–Hi, thanks for the acknowlegments in reply to my thoughts. In case you wondered about the quotes, I just got curious about abbreviation “rules” and counldn’t think better than that right then.

    To answer your question, no I don’t face that contingency as parent or legal guardian. As uncle married into a family, I had to quell my favorite sister-in-law about her rowdy, unruly toddler (my nephew Aaron) who was a tremendously proficient biter. He got served according to the daycare’s helmet law, and Leilee was surprised that he let it take no fun out of his social opportunities there. But that’s not as difficult as dealing with toddlers whose coping strategy is severely deficient, and whose real problems are not merely developmental and adaptive ones. I am very sorry for your plight, and always believe that your voice counts here in your favor as a Mom just how it truly must count to you.

  • Hi Malia, You do a truly nice job picking through the details you chose to focus on, as in keeping your reactions to the multitude of implications brief and on track–with your involvement with the issue at a personal level allowed to show up very obviously. I will save this page to read it over again. Thanks for the concision and neat succession of facts, all very logical and informatively presented. I respect your coherent approach to recommending one clear line of conclusions that strike the pragmatic note, overall. I wouldn’t want to nitpick over any of it. Definitely, you avoid prophesying about how to settle all bets and you have good ideas about how to avoid business as usual very clearly understood, here. Also, we all certainly have to recognize that things are too bad as they stand–both in life and with the behavioral healthcare system–than to prove some point by engaging in “exceptionalism rhetoric” about each and every hiring and firing and certification issue… which are not all equally skin deep.

    My alternative in support of your conception for good navigation of all these dilemmae would just be to keep as many sorts of facilities as can handle the work totally peer run/lived experienced staffed, with working professionals scheduled in by these authentic peers to the milieus for any regular 100% voluntary care needs. Potentially, soome invited on-site staff could serve, in the vein of the average dormitory front desk personnel, merely standing by until called in when upset or nervous or paranoical folks or peers with lived experience like. Or else they respond in limited verbal fashion according to specific demands for “expert opinions” off of them for some set period of time, and so on. But they should have to enter through the rear of the building when reporting to work and keep their offices there, without control over the workings of the facility and staff. This keeps them out of presuming to impose automatically on other visitors, compeers, clients, janitors, or psychiatric technicians who invite messages from the milieu that clients want directed To Those Professionals who cannot secure their egress themselves. Lived experience folks should handle all word coming the other way form them and likewise serve as escorts and observers of these helping professionals, since medical needs should be sorted out completely and not bear on the facts of behavioral theory for mental problems, under observation, in situ. Otherwise, these usual well-meaning academic types will just be around trying to do psychology to justify their own existence and supporting no one but the testing agencies and the lousy likes of the AMA/APA1/APA2, the war on drugs idiots, and the phony judgeships and socialist bureacracies, and all the bad researches and foolish wealth tranfer schemes of the racist establishment that goes with it. Just look at it now in the guise of the nanny state. Maybe some of them can change their personalities and do better for us, but not most. For instance, they haven’t even done the hard work needed of them on appreciating the meaning of comprehending and relating to altered states of perception.

    In addition, evidence is lacking that they actually esteem the perfection of existential feelings of comity and reciprocity available to everyone alike in hard won moments of rational enlightenment. These can come spontaneously with capable guidance during creative and authoritative interventions, and represent signal achievements for recovery of emotional stability and normal perceptual reasoning. They don’t take the right view of others’ achievements in attaining clear insights once they “get identified as mentally ill”. They ignore issues in respect to reaching higher consciousness free of illusory thinking, or the sense of oneness that results in the total dissipation of narcissistic and histrionic processes hidden deep within most people’s familiar ruminations. So far, as a class of human relations investigators, they are unreliable in ridiculous measure when it comes to popularizing important linguistic distinctions: what especially comes to mind is the dleiberately suppressed fact of the necessity for having every paternalistic practitioner’s policies of non-patient advocacy kept totally explicit.

    Such “caregivers” should not get legal authority or permission to contribute to case histories or trade publications regarding their work in connection with mental health goals, except as our own anti-psychiatry representatives release them from force majeur clauses, formally. Since these middle class types, logically speaking, are just the same kind of front for internal fraud as purveyors of selective enforcement of laws and entrapment of otherwise innocent of legitimate accusations for alleged wrongdoings, that is the minimum appropriate to the honest category for their IDs to represent. Anyway, how I come across the ideological divide to meet your proposal in likemindedness is simple to work out for me, in that your appeal is to conscientiousness at the same time as it is made in the name of good conscience! Fantastic work–and an approach I wouldn’t have had confidence to try. Please give us more of your recommendations again, soon.

  • “Truth”–Since diagnosis isn’t the same as the cure of disease or distress, then establishing better models for parenting has to come very high on the list of research interests and various trials of clinical method, right? So there has to be some good and bad parenting styles or approaches determined, with good and bad potentials recognized across the populations, case by case. Getting better with your kid has some plain everyday meaning, and doctors aren’t the heroes or the heavies unless they refuse to stand in and take over carte blanche for the parental authority. And they are no doctor at all if they see parents looking for the ultimate out in biology, and then fail to suggest better guardianship than by those who want all the answers coming from biological research for their autistic offspring.

  • Deron, Per Yeah_I_survived’s sayings…. The timeliness is right on about the uptick in philosophical commitments for psychological testing and legal determinations of incompetency. The Aristotelian view of character development is seeing its final formulation come to fruition as it matters for critical overviews of the human sciences including its nomenclature and research methods. Some European intellectuals with evident backing from select American pragmatists are setting the bar for a recovery of Sartre’s views on character traits and egoic presentations of affect and intentional modes of conduct. To me, this far-reching and largely invisible (i. e., “kept invisible”) trend belies the humdrum overemphasis of the multiple “cultures” of various research and institutional milieu’s and morass’s of anti-responsibility, here at home.

  • Hi BPD, You get my vote on subtlety in appropriate context on the final “genes gone off wronging us” analysis. I don’t want to push the envelope beyond that point myself: as your remark suggests, what the DNA is, is something complete and exists as given in and for the individual, but this person is not its genetic impress. And they have to tell us more than the biologist and lab tech., who are simply materialists in the life sciences vein, such specialists as will want to say we must require nothing exceptional of each other in listening skills or be labelled abnormal at birth. In order to account for their personal viewpoints and the states of their rational minds, however, people have to get tolerated and encouraged and enticed by the chance to restate their purposes and explore their limitations to surpass their physical potentials. It’s obvious that the biological view isn’t cuttie-cutter simply a matter of top-down reductions.
    The nature and condition of anyone’s real understanding can’t stop at the door that the specialist says requires them to file through for their managed care. The human sciences and neurosciences compete for obsolescence in pharmaceutical research as it is, and as AA tends to reveal, they incline toward decadence and nanny state defeatism their many indiscrete, blithesome followers. You really field the questions and the ambiguities of the human condition with authority, these days…so have you heard of Dennis Noble’s work at countering “The Selfish Gene” with his “The Music of Life”? The tide is turning, there, in some note for revival of Sheridan’s work, and academics are tackling his dualism to examine what limits his discernments–specifically, in regard to what is and is not “presenting” of objective or subjective behaviors. The web presence is convenient since the Buddhist and Science series of Oxford kicked off the lectures promoting the book.

  • Hi Deron,

    Learning to meet psychological needs and not discount their basis in life’s necessities, through which we share and achieve our understandings, is great subject material for us. I really think so, and appreciate your line of commentary; and enjoyed what else you told of your personal experiences this time. Thank you–

  • Hi Michael, Thanks for the work-up and reactions of yours, and then getting the others drawn to the page. I feel that the technology is exciting, and that it will at first and perhaps for good die away misused and this as used to oppress is just awful. Of course, as a druggy the thought that I could get the chip in something free and easy to stay off of anyway, good quality “street drugs”–let’s say, so to agree, that I mean pharmaceuticals that work great but need situational monitoring and not regulatory authority outside of the clearinghouse in which they are produced. Like LSD, Dexedrine, heroin and refined opiates, codeine, secanol, atavan and pleasant chill pills…all unnecessarily labelled as doctors need the labels to control debate and market conditions in deference to judgeships for regarding their authority, maniacally.

    Such latent dexterity is completely redundant. Who needs help visiting pharmacies and drop-in centers is no one. Nothing but bartending happens with drugs inside the current hospital system for us now, anyway. Yet what lousy service and flimsy rules they contrive for us. This can’t be argued and defended as anything but second rate to blackmarket efforts. Worse than abstinence itself. Worse than the minority rule it proscribes and intends: what the whole standard system aims at, from “stigma” to “compliance” to Segregated Assisted Living “Facilities”. All so behind the times only the most mildewed and risible Welshers would “keep foughting” to have it stay the mode of presentation that all may keep as best noticed.

    So, this wouldn’t be more than my typical commuter game face attitude, usually just wordlessly supported. Since it is so obviously the right direct criticism to the lowlife control freaks and crybabies who run behavioral health services in my country…the stupid weirdos. Anyway, the freedom that some people could but obviously won’t get to enjoy from this system is one I would only jump to mention here in some format at MIA. Hopefully, the fact isn’t out of kilter for your thread as developing so far.

    Some very recalcitrant adherents to the medical model for mood disorders could get persuaded to monitor their drug use with the problematic dosage tended to, voluntarily, then data and performances come to represent another path for convincing them to make life style changes. More systematically especially in the case of people with multiple diagnoses, who like to stick to the myth of mental illness that keeps them from knowing reponsible differences of opinion with themselves in “different” moods. Not to leave the guesswork out, think of the problem as headless and seamless and proud and fully inured with extrajudicial authority and the love of in-house “peers”, as we do have in the entirely business as usual way that supplies the hagiography in the old way of looking at the mega-pharmaceutical and anti-voluntarism “reformers”.

    Unfortunately, society is just that sick that such good opportunity is foreordained by the disgusting Left of the tag along Thomas Insellites and humbug British socialist “critical psychiatrists” attempting to mean something viable for the life of themselves, and, in like fashion “maybe with luck”. But the meaning intended is obviously outright negative domination of opinion and autonomy of patients and good support networks, and so on. Elsewhere than here and there, the very suggestion has to come in under the radar much too forcefully and demonstratively. There no one goes to weed out the bald-faced lies of the dog and pony show that goes on at the workaday level for consumers and survivors and compeers.

    Anyway, the chance to stick the product in the establishments ugly fat face or stick it and win for the battered little guy who can’t figure how to help himself out is totally marginal because of the group hug effect of bogus onus-mongering, as everyone reminds me, so far. These sorts of thumbsuckers and career moonlighters say we can’t risk freedom and good faith, then risk to the detriment of the saving graces of natural humankindness, and defeat real channels of positive empirical intervention. Such mere experiments that could go on to thrive in bartar and exchange programs that focus super-communities inside communities, instead of supra-communities that “work halfway” as homes and detention centers. What fools we have to live with here, what live idiots of the children of Martians and Venutians all prissing our true futures away–for good, for free.

    The device you rightly lambast here, Dr. Cornwall, certainly represents the many arrays of dangers your article and the post-ers in the thread suggest. If we were to tally it up, I like to think the content then would become one of the most interesting to surpass through some kind of transformative rejoinder to it. Not like some grand antithesis and thetic resolve like John Searle. Not some crackpot idiocy of George Graham’s “disordered mind” theory, another puffball of fairy-cake that signifies nothing and means it less, for however it pleases him to elaborate. Not Bill Fulford’s silent snowflakism on the hot button of the David Healy paddle of gynerosity.

    My apology in repletion, since that flippancy was unavoidable given the constantly emended agency of the neoliberal bureaucracy and the stoney anti-responsibility quacks of the meantide. Still, maybe I want these damn implants on me and not just some of them: no joking about that. The myriad uses that we can dream up for these things is truly numerable, Man. Except only my right to store them should merit the Swedish authority and dangerous permits that get dreamt up to enslave and torture and murder our rights and health plans. Democracy off the rails is no myth, and unless we reformulate the medical model and quit lending reading time to the mortal weaknesses who claim to need their nursing jobs more than equal rights for patients, and patient-advocacy spelled out in careful detail. Inviting rundowns like yours here is more apt than having the thin-veined and histrionic slow fizz of physician preferential research models. Like the alluded to misuse of the harping on RTGs to attract followings that accumulate more end o’ the era data fields to max out their party crashing marathon hit parades. Clever non-historians finally get to eat it, as we expect they should when we discover their law of opposition as the removal of literal approaches to the facts of harm intended and benign treatment options gotten suppressed. Not excluding approaches to simple withdrawal protocols that reveal the contingencies of risk and harm in proportion. And that’s what I imply by the joke above. Just see who has more trouble going off the implant. Plainly the true believers in the need for AMA life insurance and the myth of the brain drain happening when folks migrate who can’t learn to play nice and stick around for their meet-ups. Let’s see the bums pay up or shut up and lose their rep and cred.

  • Hi Cindi, Since I just started sleeping again several nights ago, after having stayed awake and alert on account of psychiatric and psychological services back East here showing such lackadaisical attitudes toward men returning from battle during my lifetime, please allow me some time to get deeper into your track of information here… and get back for further replies. The footing of your narrative discourse on evidence seems nice and everyday to me. We hardly need to repeat the insufferable and dilemmae laden tales of stupidity regarding institutional oversight from the past and recent past as far as it implicates the fear of “no new journalism” “because of the journalist’s bad day in transition to online data feeds”. As though the Left arises from the nothing itself is…. Your more worldly and broadly seen scope of humanity in detail is refreshing, and as a survivor I am really, really with you on this page, today!

  • Hi Jay, Listen, thanks ongoing. Your taste in fight reminds me of Spinoza, by the way, although at my little slight language science level. I took some time placing your nice textbook that looks worth the time to sit around (here And there…hooray, man), that is situating it in the Universe of Discourse–intellectually well. The effort was simple and basic and took the appropriate level of attention to the facts of the details and was of the difficulty that suits the plain reality that most “aeffects” us here in America. And will for ever, or at least For Good for “so long”. As I say unerring in no moanism. Sorry. Just saw who had posted and have to Ave’-Say Save the first read through for later. I have about finished my looks at fundaments and sci and fi arrangements of rhetoric and obsolete SEP talk, etc. That is done. No more viability for them inside, at all. Pleased to let you know that, while still “almost” no thanks due to the fun fanny shape up (so meaty and guerry and stitchy) on the Left Way Out on the Web.

    I like the difference (“the” Relevance) you keep tagged for keeping the talc ahead of the rosin here, for sure. Very much until later, thank you.

  • SDelgado – Since you are into taking in the whole range of the available perspective, which is in social science–most generally, the point that counts once you find or make time for the updates, here’s what seems true on one front, at least. The theory encompasses unexplained variables for some of the range of identified cause and effect relationships still for trauma relegated to the story for PTSD. The terms of theory, no matter how helpful they might be to someone trying to identify what is happening to themselves when visited with pathological reactions, never surface in the CBT literature in comprehensive form–that is, as far as I have seen. But as the targeted consumer of the information, who never got a day of help with trauma from any therapist, not to forget no referrals and using a made to order program supposedly just for it, I would expect CBT outfits who publish scores of books to heighten awareness of their good work…to put the comprehensive word out. “Fragmented memories”? “disorder of agency”? These are pretty big deals for getting your label right. But the help in framing any sort of trauma recovery seems top of the page important for what you need to reconsider as you gauge your own success on identifying cognitive errors and qualifying your remarks in revising to more instructive, accurate descriptions of what your incapacitation means relevant to your situation. I believe it is Judith Herman, who if memory serves is whose summary of the implications of the research so far in on traumas I most recently read through who said that “we don’t think any can fully recover from traumatization in their lifetime”, which is paraphrase. But I do not recall the exactly stipulated terms for this portentous remark, right now, and would need to reread this paper I did read and more of her work and analysis to understand it. In the meantime, I think that the best one to gather the data on my experience and adjustment is me. So I love seeing attention to perspective and what is or can be realistic to hope for or believe in as serious help from every direction. But no experience informs of the uptick of more viable options, generally, in the current scene, for where I live. The same doctrines and lack of specificity about who knows what until after long series of payments and misguided interviews pan out and boxes are checked is still what holds. No MIA impact to take notice shows on the surface of any promotional or insider support networks, and no one knows very much who I talk to in the allied mental health fields about either the limits or the total benefits of ranges of theories. The same slow march of shifts in patterns of doctrinaire shuffling of your case file and referrals once your seen to need “different” listening attention goes on as ever. The bottomline is, except that you go to the doctor, go to the nurse, go to the therapist with what they both do swear, and you thought it up yourself, you still will “have” what all the old papers said. That’s how it’s going. My money’s on me, reading up, and broadening my interests against the current of stifled opinions, which I’m not saying yours is. thank you

  • Hi Richard – I appreciate you heart. But you are in error to say that the cogito leads to no real world of things. That’s false. Funny, too–where did you come up with that “inference”? The cogito, correctly understood works out as the only absolute truth. But still, it is a degraded proposition. You can’t get the “I am” and the “I think” to guarantee that the “I” in both refers in each case to the same realities. But furthermore, against your position on it, the ultimate implication is that other than this absolute truth and the apodictic truths of math and logic, we live in a world of probabilities and so have to choose our enjoyments and the objects of our passion with care. Because everything is dangerous, period.

  • Hi Barrab, You get your point across to me about the arrogance well. Since you say showing and in the context of so many careful attention to the reflections that all mattered for your comment, it is clear to me what your intention is. I have already in a few moments started thinking what good advice that is and why, to look at whether my thoughts and actions are revealing a bad kind of arrogance or a bad side of myself that could change with some deliberate attention to getting something straight about who I was or was not. Especially who I was to tell someone else who they could or should be. Good job, here, for you, I think.

  • Hi Johanna – That’s nice that you have a solid opinion on the matter of tapering. I didn’t say anything bad about the highly popular and more and more frequently approved program of tapering. The idea of taking med vacations came to me from a doctor who helped me when my position was silimar to Dian’s. That is, Johanna, I didn’t know WHAT to do. Tapering also is not guaranteed. But I wouldn’t automatically have thought of anything to get started on one for any drug ever, except that this considerate doctor who was a careful listener and flexible in weighing possible solutions gave me the tip of trying “med vacations”. He plainly indicated that he had gotten enough feedback about ways that other patients coped to say “vacation” instead of “non-compliance” if he learned about some lack of consistency that seemed OK to him. Thus, he had bothered to think up this name that seemed to frighten and displease you beyond all the ways of connecting it that I shared so far.. You don’t think saying “I took a med vacation today” indicates way out dangerous thinking, do you? That’s all I suggest to dian, that a med vacation of a day can work out, but then I mean exactly what I say, Johanna. So thank you for adding your worries about the specific meaning of the words “one” or “two”, if those were the ambiguities that scared you. I meant one or two days per each week, like I said to Dian, exactly. And suggested something good could happen if she were to do that purposefully in order to get some varieties of experience and to keep track of her different thoughts and feelings for talking about. But as dian is obviously the adult in question and not a misfit or infant unable to think rationally for herself, I don’t think we should assume she just went off her Prozac all at once and started freaking out. Wake up to the idea of getting receptive to your own needs in a variety of ways, Johanna. I had to ask me some questions, you have to ask you some questions. Dian has to ask her own questions, too. And that it is up to dian if she decides to start a taper or anything else or not, totally, as things stand. And that she should try to get to her thoughts shared with someone that appreciates that Dian is Dian, so that the sharing gravitates toward some kind of process for an unfolding of the complications she experiences from her pain and how her pain comprises her freedom to enjoy life. Remember pain, Johanna? Is the whole idea of confronting someone else’s pain about saying things about tapering for you or what? Whoa! yourself, Johanna. She might do it, it might work, nothing might. But something should. No one knows what. Read John Dawes!

  • Hi Andrew – In CBT workbooks so far I have believed that authors continually made deliberate efforts to impress the need for me the reader to assess the realistic connection of any thoughts to the people and things they were about in actuality. I appreciate the detail and practicality of your question as you spelled the logic out for doing that out according to the implications just of good and bad thoughts themselves in relation to how you tackle just thought-relationships. Thank you.

  • Hi Dian–

    I wouldn’t miss the opportunity to hear you out if you came to me for that. You need to think of things that haven’t occurred to you, if you haven’t gotten on the bearable side of some issue. Or you need and want to understand some things it make you think of in a different light, want more of one feeling then another so that you get perspective on what to do. You need uplifting feelings to know what might give you more realistic chances to work through grief in the first place. I feel sorry for your loss. Maybe Prozac by itself also keeps you from flowing with ideas that are most realistic. Maybe take one or two day vacations from it each week and journal about it, see how the Prozac off days compare to the Prozac on days. Try the competing modes of experiencing your sadness and look at all the similarities and differences in thought as well as feeling. Act like your situation–the real one–house, car, hobbies, errands, friends, scrapbooks, pleasures, pains–is just undicovered for how you need it to be. That it’s impossible to work with might seem true or be true enough, but the answer is what to change about both you and it, and the range of answers includes just scrapping your situation and gettingyourself onto more and better. So I am suggesting that if you vary your drug intake safely and predictable and keep track of that outcome, and if you on purpose get the freshest looks you can and work on naming the similarities and differences to how you were that was better at the time, or how you want to be–then you just will have better chance to talk anything over. The better prepared you are to say anything more particular and seen from a range of different angles on it, especially once you realize that you don’t have the final perspective on all this one thing might connect up with, you can work through bits and pieces of your issues lots better in talking them out. You can definitely do that since you say things clearly. Someone somewhere will want to talk with you, happily. They won’t know your answers but should like what you do for yourself when you look inside to get the meanings of your pain sorted out. You need company somehow, as you obviously realize. What the person or persons who finally seem like the best company to you call themselves in life is hard to say, though. They might not be listed as talking professional help, or they might be. You never know. But you have gifts of expression and some good and some bad luck with connecting with people and with sorting your issues out and getting them into working order, and those just are the things to improve, as the drugs are like hamster wheel solutions to any real life matter. I hope you are turning things around decisively soon, and believe you can.

  • Jill,

    Although remotely connected to your promotional responsibilities and your recently published works’s individual value to us, the way that scholarship in philosophy of mind plays out in reply to cognitive neuroscience and the related programmatic issues that interest researcers in both of these diverse fields, certainly suggests to me that your book is important to read. Thank you for the timely and intelligent help you offer survivors and all mentally ill people and those who care about them by showing you care about the science they have to trust.

  • Orbit – hi, again and hope you got clear messages. I think that Dr. Galves knows what he hopes he knows, but not a point of view that’s not his. Like everyone. So I had good positive stuff in reserve besides concern that I couldn’t see how to spell out above. I did just sort of instinctually absorb some essence of the article, like stated to jw_arndt, above.

    I had got curious with your remarks, earlier, and an idea came into my head. One that was hard to get started on since it seemed to require meeting you halfway, and I didn’t know half of the way. The things that were easier to say just were easier for myself to relate and care about thinking over because I do anyway. Sorry about that– if it was, or sounded like a bad reply.

    Here is the positive, which needed some time. Thank you for yours, again. This: your focus, your communication style and your way of thinking, as sparse as your language sometimes is, together these reflect the differences in various approaches to subject matter involving Theory of Practice. To be precise, what is called Theory of Praxis, when done right, answers to what it takes to teach and refine someone’s acqusition of a particular set of skills. Whatever is humanly practiced falls within its domain. In given sets of circumstances and in all areas of life, when people set out to learn what to do, Praxis seeks to know how they did it.

    I thought maybe you knew and maybe not about that, and that you should check it out in searches at this point, either way. Just add it in as a keyword. Science to communications majors can use praxis theory for research. I downloaded some things myself because they aligned with my prior reading interests. You might find something at the comfortable midway point that allows transitions from easy to hard, which is the potential I see for how issues in praxis might help me. I hope that made more sense!

    To reiterate, Orbit: your focus, way of thinking, and communication style remind me of someone who has worked through some of what studying praxis theory teaches. Maybe you could say it teaches how to learn from necessary learning experiences better, including with books and articles and feedback. How you personally mean to get busy and to get something done is about your learning style and communication interests, and not just what someone can tell you, definitely. But there it is–this image of praxis theory occurring to me in looking at your latest comment, got me pretty wound up about things I believed I needed to get busy on.

    You seem like you could get a soft focus working for yourself right now really well. Maybe looking around at the literature for this field will give you ideas about looking arounds for more. Since ways that practice makes good on its aims is what it’s about.

  • B – yeah, super funny, here, and let’s you go with the middle way, laughing loud, too. So, listen, B–relatedly on getting the big pictures to what good thinking ought to seem to all who know, have you heard of the book called “Logic Comix”? I picked this neat book up and have only checked it out to consider its value and see how it might settle on logical asides in the drawings and their juxtapositions…”beyond” the remarks. Taken seriously as your introductory text it provides a sweeping survey of intellection on logical theory, and coughs up the general facts of the history of its multidisciplinary implications in relation to the History of Ideas. I am sure you could find howlers from one chapter to the next, since they work through Russell and Whitehead, and Russell thought bad work was what “genius” makes most well into its owner’s bad jokes about his own soon to be “prior self”–in faculty and publication terms, anyway.

  • Orbit – I Get your intents. But about your hesistation to lay out your terms more definitively for Dr. Galves…. He probably can’t read you like a skeptic and get down to business in a like manner as you try doing in your posts if he doesn’t know something about where you are coming from and your level of expertise. Right, the evidence base goes through the crosshairs when science turns from forensic to chemical analyses, from pieces case histories together to diseecting molecules and watching them affect how DNA dances, and so forth. But the game of protesting too much about how you classify controlled substances has to get approached gamily, not rigidly like the one way is totally the only way to do it. That problem starts for most of us and for how our lives go in DEA classifications, that is the Law here, etc. To neglect the context won’t get you seeing how you want about that fine split between science trial and error and scientific theoretical reductions of theories and terms from one model to the next. It’s tough stuff, so you’d better get your background representing you here, if you want the value of expressing yourself to count in the mix and reward you in the first place for say your peace and all. Do you read philosophy of science? Antipsychiatry needs big help with that.

  • But we need the anti-Bio message in any case, and coming across wisely encouraging in how its stated–like this is By Al. The importance of intending to ask yourself how you really stand to answer for things alone counts for much more than no “greater” option. Evidently you are sometimes pretty good at that, if you are prone to such meaningful jokes. This happens anytime you want it to, this taking responsibility, so you will have to work harder at the Blasphemy next time for me to lose the personal benefit of having my own point of view next time over. Sorry about thee gobbledygook language like shows in my first reply above. Gosh, this keeps hurting to say I’m sorry about obscurity, but I am. (Personal note: The funny way to let myself off for that has more and more been that not anyone ever in hundreds of professional contacts, employed any smart language with me during their encounters for which they were having their questions aimed at me, not any language that had anything like possibility of success at work for coming up with the right supportable diagnosis for this system’s people to work on and think about. Generally, few MIA authors’ behavioral healthcare colleagues I’ve known have patiently and deliberately tried to see about what I like, who I am, or what I know. Anyone who used technical language and tried to insist it fit my case really missed the point. Only the people who let the questions stand and were willing to believe that my own interest was high in getting somewhere about my problems for myself did anything for me at all. But no one ever said “disorder of agency” or “fragmented memories” or “flashback sequences” or “depersonalization” were any kind of thing for me to check against my “lived experience” or how I felt or thought, not ever once. Not even in abiofeedback program promoted for PTSD with doctors and therapists both, recommended to me by own now departed sister who killed herself for not getting her Paxil to fix everything for everybody who wanted it to–or something close to that in motive regarding the drug option. Plus, there is no such thing as MIA impact where I reside, and the opposite is still true here very frequently, as contrasted with some comprehensive of general interests to keep explicit when helping people with relating to the value of personal growth.) So your comment let me channel much more than I could think to say something about is easiest way to put it, at this point.

    How you can do that aforementioned self-inquiry right and much better from time time with advisement, I promise you can tell if you ever have your chance to get very deep into therapy, though. Then the everyday changes lots, but the label–whichever one–stays as stigmatizing as ever unless you help people change their minds about how smart they are to like you with trauma issues that you are starting to recover from, instead of how in awe of psychiatry they were while believing that you were less than needed because you would never get good at much and do it reliably well. As everybody knows, the minority of absolute compliance example cases show perfectly great, happy and spontatneous lovers of life coming out of the usual treatment programs. Anyway, finding good therapy isn’t easy, and half of the content of this article suggests that we need to expect to run into shopping problems right up front, which is an OK thing to leave implicit in my view. Sometimes it is best to leave shopping advice aside or implicit for anything important to do, when your particular need is for procuring services rather than goods, ifyou see the point in that. That’s one thing, and another is that crisis intervention really is out there doing little good most of the time than what anyone tired of this system’s service commitments knows. But if some rich mix of talented peer and non-peer mixed crews got together and ramped that up like some have been know to be trying, that is one way of keeping numerous individuals getting the emergency vehicles all fired up in their honor and feeding themselves back to the hospital wards for renewed detentions and no new techniques. That is a way I myself found honest support but once, but I won’t forget it or how it could have helped my sister to have practiced calling and saying two things about her feeling really just shy of giving up on herself. That you get taken away immediately upon saying you think about if that is what you should do makes no very good sense. I have had half a dozen people at least say as much to me, and we arrived at no further understanding than that I wasn’t there to help change their minds about anything very personal and unique about them, or get to the bottom of what about their minds were so messed up. At first blush upon reading your comment, I was thinking “…Nonetheless, the general points this blogpost makes all count for something having to do how you know live options when you see them”, etc., or something. You know it has to do with your take on your basic needs and interests as well as your thoughts about how you want your purposes overall to start working out, right now. I mean that to me, you want “stop and think about time daily lots and lots”, becasue this puts you into the right positive attitude–if you know what you are doing–to see much about your relationship to your feelings that you couldn’t just by wishing you had mapped them all out. And the variety of replies in the thread has good range and no matter how seemingly disputatious you find yourself in reaction to such efforts as Dr. Galves for something that leaves you hanging out with the aburdity of the material implications in respect to your life, here, you are bound to get inspired to try to achieve thoughtfulness and levelheadedness about the options you create. Of course, how your comment first affected me led to that realization of the good seriousness in your joke, and I’m still laughing just the same. Thank you for making your reply so interesting, J., and I am sorry my first handling of these same concerns with the same conceptual framework for spelling out my beliefs about options as before turned out so garbled in reply. In fact, in comparison, your comment was like someone as passenger saying to a busyminded and meandering talker behind the wheel–“Look at that lovely tornado!” But I learned how to get very deeply into therapy basically despite what was ever on offer, and from just glimpses of something that could have headed somewhere nice enough for someone who was not me, if the person got to see her lighten up like she had lightened up with me long enough to reveal about how things would go. But I had too much to get straight without more theories, that’s for sure, and some direct questions asked of me fairly early on if not immediately–about like “What do you think they were trying to do to you?” with raised eyebrows, and a sort of baffled curiosity amidst the expressions behind it, would have given me just the assurance I needed for seeing how my window-shopping had actually worked out, if you now what I mean. So, nothing much worth telling about went down for me, but I got it made easy to see therapeutic options like you couldn’t get enough of them if I look where my instincts tell me to go with my attention to the matter, now. So this people-pleaser of an article from Dr. Galves fits for me like a blurry gust of a familiar whirlwind of updates on social actions needed, the same as for the telling range of self-help reminders given away. Oh, well–so many thoughts to wait on from how you let yourself get affected. So many thoughts, and then the best part of the trip–that I like. Thank you, J., for your pleasant contribution, too.

  • Psyches are just thought up as constructions, so it doesn’t matter to get too specific if the strike intended gets aimed at anti-Bio–I can tell you that. But my intention is not to start in on the whole meaning of human science, and if all “blame”–whatever this man is naming by the term–is in every case perverse, then he got preoccupied A Lot Once. I hope that helps with your dilemma or any further chances to think about restating some of the meaningful content for how it shows loyalty to way out quiet time for kid’s punishments and big bad terrible things for those who murder–like “help”.

  • Hi Laura,

    Actually, considering that you’ve adopted a general attack on the issue of informed consent and started with the idiotic and weird practice of ECT as your route to get a handle on it, I like how it sits better among the most important issues for survivors. Well, just that infrence leaves me with a job, in the loser’s game set up on MIA for mincing your fine words to the users in favor of the defeatists: to wit, my new “job” is to decide how ECT and any other survivor issues now rank in importance as societal ones for us and anyone abroad, and then how they stack up as human rights issues among all potential human rights issues on a global scale. Anyway, backing up from that digression, your focus on the lack of informed consent brought me back here to write, with what I thought through yesterday with some help from other commenters and some news also counting. Beyond that and forever, I suppose it is true that thoughts of others worth something for their time, if nothing else, and usually the potential to feed them and take some enjoyment from keeping that pleasant–thoughts of the worth of the less than inspirational people around with you in a human rights fight, those thoughts count for something human and true, too, and therefore also must help. But having had the pleasure to meet you and here your voice in person, and see your contentment growing as you understood in your time at it a little more that the reality of informed conesent for ECT–if it ever exists–goes down hill fast after your prepped and not needed. And so it goes with the loss of rights game. My reckoning is that our civil rights getting abrogated is our number one cause. Human rights as a whole, something to learn all about, but our own what to focus on. Lack of apt informed consent, it’s virtual impossibility in many instances, our third priority for an antipsychiatry survivor movement with an abolishment platform for how we are made use of for psychiatrists and their business affiliates—all of them–and the critics and surviviors to get to write and sell their books. You have to take the good with the bad, when the work for which you need no special training is thought pretty tricky to get right. What a laugh. What a joke. What a screw-up. What a loss. Up theirs.

  • bpd – Sorry and sorry ahead of time. Your responses were perfect for the occasion, it seems to me, and I don’t need anything ever in reply unless some inspiration commands it. But I still would appreciate your reading any comment of mine if it naturally comes to your attention that you want to. We all are pretty happy with that, who are mainly ignored pretty much of the time. When my ability to stay articulate about this whole range of issues becomes the thing that matters, and usually I’m never–you know–put to the test for anything much, then that will be what I work on right away. Thank you for your accurate help in taking charge of yourself as a fellow thinker and talker somewhere out there and prompting my comprehension into gear about putting some attention on the fact that of making this happen. Your very direct and courteous, considerate manner of sharing your knowledge is what made me want to work at this, and those things are allowed to take shape here. Well, I got clear and learned to understand some of the commentary that I encounter here better from now on–until I maybe don’t again with various types of opinionated expression. I had to write the essay version for what I believe to be the true purposes of biopsychiatry and, additionally, the real incidental meanings of its use of the medical model for deflecting criticism of its improper legal authority. That improper authority to detain and coerce is solidly and unopposedly maintained as an historical aberration of gross proportions where most of us live, and is disgusting to me for what it means to have it existing in the United States. That is the main issue at the heart of the survivor movement’s needs for something to call out as insufficiently noted, in my view. And that demurring about and backstaging of the human rights issue is the business as usual clause to be seen with all the concerted mewling around about reforms needed that the system can “survive” not getting our time and attention enough unless they count a dozen more new ways than for our habeas corpus and due process related rights before the Law itself represents a lose or win all racket for the moneyed and most bureaucratically influential powers that be, in my eyes. We should maintain a strong focus on the abolishment of forcible detention and every obvious or subtle type of practical coercion at all times, too, and act like we get the point of why unless we are out of the world asleep. The freedom and opportunity issue is what topically should never get deflected one bit, as everyone knows who wants to live here. Psychologists can make it very easy to understand that behavioral healthcare experts will lie if they see the chance to influence the legal process along the lines of who gets to keep their rights equal and who won’t. They should work to establish little else in the public’s imagination, but hardly ever show work on this psychologically relevant problem. In your case here, however, I mainly had not got my thought clear about something else, totally–more of a David Healy and Al Francis office procedure issue than one for getting patient advocacy working fairly and safely in this country, like we were both considering here, it’s safe to say. To wit: Mortimer and Brown haven’t got the right to disagree with care options that work better or else differently and yet still just as well, much less to squelch the fact of the matter with writing the traces of these competing views out of existence in any of their work-related thoughts that get published as they thought them in mere biopsychiatric terms. Any time psychiatrists working with this foolishly granted extra-judicial authority in their favor put up the bio-option, they owe us the clearer picture that science can already have seen by then to give everyone about behavioral healthcare solutions–side by side. The role of entitlements in this system based on this giant silent majority of careproviders with their “response” on legal rights abuses is at a ground swell and support for freedom of expression seen on the Left at an all time low. From the viewpoint of any of this allied mental health industry’s representatives or any of their commerce-friendly advocates for reform measures that this current group of caregivers can “survive” is the biggest joke going around for those of us who mean to criticize treatment insufficiencies and rights abuses carefully, fully, and well. The deficiency in level of intellectual commitment reigning throughout the allied mental health professions, taking them as if represented in a state of full employment according to available positions, as well as that for the higher educational departments in synchrony with their aims, comes that meaningful one fraction of a second behind legal rights in importance for survivors as an essential issue. However, we are led to the same point of conclusion through this bifurcation. The rights issues lean on the myth of mental illness. The myth of mental illness would itself become pleasant as a good, kind, helpful source of humor, if the allied mental health industry representatives in charge of training, magazines and whatnot in their own and their colleagues favor would choose not to keep mandated treatment the live legal option for biopsychiatry that it is. All sorts of unhelpful and routine medico-therapeutic state advocate ideas would look dangerous to carry on about that get constantly bandied about her in shifting forms. To keep their Obamacare entitlements appropriately easy to depend on, helping professionals in the psychologically needy or the psychiatrically diseased arena would suddenly really have to earn their keep. They owe us, and not the other way around, who want us to handle them feathering their nests while patients die from the killer silence about mental illness as a myth and the fact holding that our degraded citizenship status is its meaning. Some caregivers who blog here do OK with that term of engagement with survivors and remain solidly determined advocates for them above all else. I wish the others had to take it sink or swim, instead of getting propped up the petty reform movement lies. Is there a chink in the wall for the fateful deluge to end the unity between power and psychiatry, really? With all this closely held opinion-and navel-gazing going on about the civil rights “question”, I doubt it. But we still should try to count at everything that matters: that’s all right.

  • I knew you weren’t talking to me. That talking the issue down to black and white of yours for a look at it was what struck me as needed. Your comments all hang together well and tend to get the simplest things connected to the significant elements for the overall case for abolishing coercion to be made every time. In addition, my level of incapacitation is now much more restricted to the terms of mechanically significant (motor reflex) matters of consequence for any mental state compromised by disorder of agency, as mine were almost my whole life some way. When I mess up any grammar or start going off on tangents with emotional overtones that seem incongruent, I can definitely stand to blame better than ever as far as formulating clear to see intentions for staying responsible about thoughts and actions. You take care, anothervoice.

  • Sorry about random typos–it’s bad to miss those– No less bad is leaving out the important adjective to qualify the criticism of the majority of prescribing physicians met with in my experience (but just there for a listen are about the same, too). Probably you will–You likely will–I usually, most usually have seen communication shutdown if the doctor wasn’t the first person to think of what to use. We see that the right idea for safety is unlikely to get around in the needed revolutionary way, and the word for making that possible never has been possible. Doctors want hegemonic influence ahead of patient advocacy and rights to choose your drugs with good advice freely offered in your favor, no matter what your goal in dosing.

  • This establishment and its doctrinaire commitments to paternalism in every routine professional-client interaction has outlived it’s entertainment value. The results are in on that–so, what’s new? The effects of your insomnia on the Dragon of Psychiatry’s little insiders who are all there to help make things about your life seem less difficult is bad for you. So kill the uneasy mechanism’s effects on your brain chemistry as a whole when and how you want. If you know something about what is keeping you sorrowful, frustrated, and frazzled by overanxiety, and if you know how you might like to sleep it off under the influence of some intoxicant decide on the nicest pill. But by all means, first try your most trusted drug-free alternatives for all your worth before choosing medicine as safely as you believe is needed, and if you feel is might work better with some help, then two heads are better than one. But you determine the need for stopping your bout of insomnia and what it means to you. You choose the effects you like and see about getting the ones you like out of the pill you choose. But that means only if you have the leisure to try that at last decision freely at all! I haven’t met the doctor yet who antes up with due diligence about experimenting with single low doses yet. Most in my experience want something less principled and more business as usual that goes with the program. However, oftentimes that seems basically to happen since it serves to represent what they stand to get out of the clinical arrangement: more control. If you are at all assertive, or skeptical and unamazed about the value of official authority control over your decisions, as you should openly be with any doctor, you get the expected communication shutdown. That they feel insecure about their position of authority is their problem and not ours to struggle with.

  • Computer programming wasn’t very well taught yet when my terms became those of nontraditional survivor retaking English and opting out of clueless pscyh some more times. Tellingly, I see potential error in the implementation for the IT ontology, such that it the procedure doesn’t let the machine decide every detail of input and all input is variably defined for mthe outset no matter what entity it intends to “collect” in to the form of one term. No matter what happens about that and any speculation on it, though, no hurry should seem needed for giving Their troops a big survivor reform movement shout out about it from here. They are, after all, the medico-statists authorities’ own. The model for prescribing isn’t market-driven enough according to drug availability for the consumer, and that matters most for the data and outcomes measured–alike. And for health and safety and information sharing rituals and lookup codes at point of sale.

  • Interesting. Was Chris Exxo part of helping that along with Salon? Slate sounds less decided in its terms, and Newsweek wants things right to bait and switch with depending on who opposes what or favors what reason for the moment in some responsible position. Fox is just weighing in light, and not surprisingly, since the issue is minor to the press as an instrument of the masses on welfare, and society as a whole can see the problems as it likes as far as professionals and acedemics would concern themselves with our (psychiatry survivor patient movement activist mental health leader reform organizer movement radical survivor person) legal rights. If anybody wants to see where liberal policy is destined to remain, go to the website for The Nation, put mental illness in their search engine, if you can spare any–Then sit back to enjoy the flair.

  • bpd – You are real help in the middle of expecting none, for people you work with, I think. Any questionably meritorious conduct at all, and no intent to hit you with some disregard of some kind in particular was my worry above. Since I experience disorder of agency, getting at my intentions before enacting my response is the required nature of the vigilance that let’s me take part and anwer for myself in the equation. My attention to one thing–worse than for most people–drops a blind over my appreciation for something just set into the background for a moment while I see what I believe, for instance. Or feel and mean to relate. The intentionality and the constructs associated with it are of reduced functioning in their value. You are totally right that I have to hang with the “idea” of things happening and wait on the feedback for my impressions to matter right. Cheap popular cultural vehicles, for instance–most all we generally see, that is–often grant me the final elements of the cathartic response some pleasantries or shoot-’em-ups ahead of schedule, no matter how sappy and fast action or how moddish and restrained. I drop the most idiotic tears for nothing because of what has gone “untreated”. Anyway, my message was about appropriating the authors viewpoint and the range of ambitions likely operating for their meanings in the contexts in which they like their work and make it how they live. I hope that starts you on the road to better knowledge, somehow. I believe you know that the authors are not just competing with their wits and their contents as put on offer, who are pro-psychiatry however it can stay arranged and not tell all its problems to the world. They want to push some things to research and some to the press and some to each other and their minions and whoever else is compliant, through however many alliances they can identify in their social arrangements. They want not to make anything much explicit that suggests a different power play option than what the “science responds to” or the “science promises and warns”. But they are all coming from the area of discourse that is actually that of opinion, and almost not one says anything scientifically right about good protocols and P. R. measures that alone could reduce harm. They want nothing right if it means things stay the same in money and job security terms, in entitlement terms so that arrests make them profits and give them credibility, and so that little vague reminders of the behavioral healthcare double-dutch with facile and cowardly therapists seem unproblematic. Look at Psychology Today and its free advertising for whatever insane or intervention called some game term. Since these institution that constitute the paradigm under discussion on MIA–inasmuch as Bob Whitaker has not focussed on the extrajudicial nightmare of most consequence just yet–are licensed and legal to use for doing nothing great, we very predictably can expect to keep watching them do nothing great in either APA or NIMH stated terms even, all the while continually misrepresenting the relevant value judgments about case outcomes and, hence, reform needs, so obscenely. My problem above ended up having left my particulars too obscure in case it mattered that someone could follow some of the considerations. People making waves as best they can now are not just reinventing Szasz or replacing his terminolgy with their own, however similar their take on the meaning of shared principles for promoting abolishment–as that implies no mistakes allowed from coercion or labelling anymore. And be your own doctor.

  • Thank you, Brett. Good hunches about something afoot can often not come to you with clear perceptions of the environment that occasions them, as we all know. My issues with CBT just are the quieting down of the issues of the proliferation of insupportable disagnoses, such as we have increasingly seen–or that tendency ongoing in how its groups get their work and word out along with the colonization of independent survivor efforts at direct patient or peer survivor advocacy. The talk of its scienc-iness also goes on a little long and gets somewhat hackneyed for failing to say what it as a program is all about: compatibility with the current paradigm to no end of the ease with which it can command psychiatry’s attention with its results. I mean that in my DPAFU handbook, the details for some ordinary example of what that could all mean for a consumer (that is, to have “waited” on their neat label) are hinted at to the end of leading you to feel assured that you are in the right program now. Since the book can’t talk or stop you from talking and inject you, we’re all fine again. On the other hand, the several bywords aimed at clinicians themselves for getting this “unpopular label” to command some attention, are all left in the language of saying all that can be said about the poor undiagnosed and undrugged and stigmatized among the masses. Clearly, practitioners know that breathing a word of anything appearing shakily unreal about everyday experiences, in the majority of clinical settings in behavioral healthcare for decades has led from to bad to awful results for years for numerous individuals. CBT advocates sure know and noticeably want it thought most appropriate if kept inexplicit. What’s up with that?

  • I didn’t want to go all out like this, but my button didn’t stop. As this isn’t proofed for honest moral considerations, it might not say the same as the corrected one below, and I’m sorry about that. It can be overlooked and hopefully Emmeline will rescind it since I disavow it. Please Emmeline, if you are willing to believe that, that was sent hastily and in error by forgetting what my obligations were in regard to freedom of expression. My bad.

  • bpd – I think they realize that they have an ad hoc argument in hand, so they are intentionally aiming not to highlight the things you suggest. What that is not nefarious, but only arises from misconception, would motivate them to throw their winnowing out of casework by example idea into the mix? Desire for publication and knowing you can’t publish anything great, since your theories haven’t shown definitive results, isn’t an adequate excuse in the helping professions for staking the claim to your turf, either. But I would suppose that they could only be meaning and hoping to also gear something back having to do with external criticism by juggling some appearances and changing up the pitches and smart talk overlays, and then add to that good work with the intention to suggest stimulating new empirical results by changing the population arrested for behavioral healthcare’s scientific purposes. Meanwhile, you surely thought of all this, and still more understanding was behind your reply, no doubt, as indicated by your reading and the link you enabled. I only want to add that having schizophrenia as the golden ring of all that psychiatry means to neuroscience and psychiatry’s own public relations efforts, for brandishing selectively in reaction to changing purposes, particularly whenever the chips are down, keeps it as an insitution safe from lethal or decimating harm in its coercive formulation, as long as the Academy and the press like most things most the way it needs and likes things, too. We are just waiting around if we aren’t focussing on movement principles almost verbatim as laid out in the Szaszian critique, and newer alternative human rights approaches very like it in their purposes. It gets hard for most people to see what gives the lie to every little justification for intervention as suits the beast we are fighting, and fighting with it to get fixed up nice isn’t going to make the press less lazy or higher education more socially determined about trying do what’s right for us all. We will just see more people there than ever in those professions getting along with each other, staying busy praising the kind of opportunity freedom gave them, and damning the poor communications about all what was going so wrong before the corruption was really ripe enough to handle.

  • bpd – I think they realize that they have an ad hoc argument in hand, so they are intentionally aiming not to highlight the things you suggest. What that is not nefarious, but only arises from misconception, would motivate them to throw their winnowing out of casework by example idea into the mix? Desire for publication and knowing you can’t publish anything great, since your theories haven’t shown definitive results, isn’t an adequate excuse in the helping professions for staking the claim to your turf, either. But I would suppose that they could only be meaning and hoping to also gear something back having to do with external criticism by juggling some appearances and changing up the pitches and smart talk overlays, and then add to that good work with the intention to suggest stimulating new empirical results by changing the population arrested for behavioral healthcare’s scientific purposes. Meanwhile, you surely thought of all this, and still more understanding was behind your reply, no doubt, as indicated by your reading and the link you enabled. I only want to add that having schizophrenia as the golden ring of all that psychiatry means to neuroscience and psychiatry’s own public relations efforts, for brandishing selectively in reaction to changing purposes, particularly whenever the chips are down, keeps it as an insitution safe from lethal or decimating harm in its coercive formulation, as long as the Academy and the press like things that most the way it needs and likes things, too. We are just waiting around if we aren’t focussing on movement principles almost verbatim as laid out in the Szaszian critique and alternative human rights approaches very like it. It gets hard for most people to see what gives the lie to every little justification for intervention as suits the beast we are fighting, and fighting with it to get fixed up nice isn’t going to make the press less lazy or higher education more socially determined about trying do what’s right for us all. We will just see more people there than ever getting along with each other, and praising the kind of opportunity freedom gave them, and damning the poor communications about all what was going so wrong before the corruption was really ripe enough to handle.

  • That’s good to know about your work on this issue, Sharon. Did you catch the recent link to the paper discussing the five European psychiatrists publishing a pilot research article for inventing “towards” a new definition of “mental health”? They as well as intend to make cognitive therapy of whatever kind prescriptive of what it means to be human–ideological sweet-smelling crap from front to back, by your oppressors. Since the data and theoretics for cognitive psychology won’t sustain the effort to build an ontology that supports it, then once again, the clinical applications and treatment modalities in sum total will just leave out the whole person, and this will eventually become clearer over time. The relationship in therapy counts a priori somehow, and Beck et al. must get tired of that fact showing up their work, and as much as they go along with meds and whatever else. As usual, we need the science but our interpretations have to be much wiser than the official rubrick allows. Something about respect and mutual consideration modifies the clinical encounter and allows personality changes to happen, which as I understand it only can come about if the whole personality is present for the “helped” person who must also count as one who observes the changes. Probably we change our personality in its elemental structure when we rather wouldn’t when getting physically or psychologicaly beaten down, but what is worse we have no reliable help then in seeing the evidence of how we went about our work at it, nor any trustworthy assistance to alert us to what we chose to act on in order to give it a go. So trying to avoid something that seemed even more painful to put up with from the abuse or disregard, or from the potential range of the other problems we believed it might cause if not “compensated” for, suggests very much that is substantial along the lines of common sense for bolstering the plausability of your trauma model. If we accounted for such things as the motor skills and reaction times for committing actions in emergency response to threats, the model for PTSD, generally, could work for every pathological state of self-sustaining disorder in cognition. But the relationship would outdo the focus on some theory, then, too.

  • Aria – Beautifully stated and such a kind reminder of what can happen if doctors are good at their jobs, even if nothing gets reformed besides some mainstreaming of our route of access to legal recourse (like by critical psychiatrists, maybe?) for pursuing reviews of our diagnoses for anyone who would like to sue the bad doctors…. I can’t think of any blogposts on that, or would link them for you. Sorry.

  • Sorry that got worded ambiguously–I definitely didn’t see that until now! He made the wordplay into foul play, is something I still can’t think how to say in the style I wanted. But maybe then again it was too much for me to say intelligently with all the contempt hitting me full force. His contempt as it surfaces in this jibe against you actually reminds me of nothing less than what hate speech is meant for. (See Nat Hentoff’s “Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee”–) My own contempt for Dr. 22’s malignant, hateful action was probably too overwhelmingly happy for me to recognize for me to stay creative.

  • Someone Else – Outrageously aggressive and malevolent foul play made of his play on words for your “benefit”. Foul play, when it sinks to the level of making fun of your case right in the paperwork for it, creates evidence that points at its author’s swollen head and puny conscience. Let’s all figure out how to say goodbye with you to Dr. 22, somehow. Forever.

  • Stephen – I continue to enjoy the evolution of your viewpoint on how the responsible authorities you know and help to educate go about mediating the irresponsible attitudes they are willing to choose. We can reasonably assume that their first step is to try to call this pragmatic and in support of good intentions, as they next must set out to play truth or consequences some more with distressed people’s bodies and minds. Please keep us up on your firsthand study and outline of these and other contextual determinants, specifically as they reveal how psychiatrists are crossing the lines to use their inmates’ degraded legal rights status to justify their ignorance and suspicion of the less convenient information sources for making their power appear socially essential and medically helpful. Of course, my interest in the meaning of their understanding you as a survivor–which to me means forcibly detained in order to keep misinformed, mainly–is the motive for my saying thanks a lot for your effort. You get the revolutionary tasks brought to life that have to do with maintaining your reaction to this strange American injustice so that it is really evidence of creative maladjustment in service and protection of human rights. Such a nice show of vocational interest all around is terrifically sharing of you, and your friendliness kept in evidence through your work situation is the truth of conscience speaking on the right plane for getting the sharing to count.

  • David, Thanks for seeing to keeping us up on the parameters for your view of global warming and the way to discuss it, and you really work in the significant transitions in your focus on variety of substantial issues and their human rights implications in an expert way, I think. The simple fact that ECT is in itelf an alarming prospect for any appealing variety of social arrangements that we can imagine and consider is the fine common sense verdict that it is, of course. That medicine wants to controvert this rationally founded judgment so audaciously has nothing to do with science, unless it is of a type that aligns itself directly with the eugenics causes psychiatry still means to inculcate if it can, while at the same time distancing itself from the historical reminders of its many anti-humanistic interests in the name of the status quo and opportunism in every regard.

  • Hi Dr. Torbert, I came back to take a look at your ideas after spending lots of time studying to put the first batch of them in context. Now some experience has come to mean more than I could have expected, which was a little more than average as a healing kind of one. Otherwise–that is, if it had not revealed the overlap off all the discourses directed at recovery with those for renewal, I would pretty much have insisted that the word “adjustment” taken in the most scientifically psychological sense was the whole story, at least until advances happened and something gave in neuroscience. Truthfully, I understand scientific proof well enough that no matter that this all went and happened without misstep or failed proposition one, that the evidence which would prove what a mental disorder was would still exist in a highly dubious conditon, as it obviously never has been otherwise than misappropriated from any sufficiently rigorous framework for its dissection as a useful concept. My stage of appreciation for the shamanistic theories as your book might discuss them is at this point: since my “Dark Night of the Soul” of a few days ago exactly followed a peak experience of self-realization, that itself showed me what I already knew (from good rational argument) to be the case, about the mind and the activity of it that meant my being me; and since my self-described energy counsellor had understood that the two things implied each other–the uplift and the disrupted sense of perception of everyday things; and because he had gently warned me to expect a less readily anticipated discontinuity in my further adjustment following this one extraordinary moment of insight–very freeing and of lasting effect in itself, as you would understand– I can’t omit the significance of the mystical tradition for defining optimal mental health or mental health problems as something to be cleverly assumed as scientific. The probability of good rational discrimination for functional and genetic explanations seems significant enough either way. (Of course, “genetic” here means a type of planned presentation of inferences, and not something biological that makes me intend and do what I hate or can’t help, or something.) Or call this elusive pattern of existing optimal effectiveness in human living pscyhological wellbeing, or whatever. At least, I cannot dismiss the practicality of the concept of spiritual suffering and rebirth and so on, getting misunderstood as bona fide –shall we say–mental illness, until I understand the other side of the coin, because the shamanistic tradition is not fully speaking my language yet. That other side of the coin I am telling about is a little more stubborn in revealing its secrets. If me, a very logically oriented type of thinker, with no holds barred views of atheism besides, and plenty of forgiveness for romantics in all their faults and follies, could see this step toward better functioning well-outlined in either the jargon of the behavioral healthcare system (let’s say it’s best selected jargon), or that of some mystic system, then I have to rationally understand something more still in order to apprehend the full meaning of my pattern of lived experience through these couple of recent days. That makes for the pressure and the motive to work at it. That since it works out succinctly and rigorously enough seen in either the ancient or the modern dynamic, and my experience teaches me still to look at the originary appearance of my dysfunction as just a cognitive neuroscience affair to figure out, is not an idle observation. This is a fully intutive take of mine on the whole issue nevertheless, too, and not just some kind of hunch. But also it is not just a resistance or bias, merely. It’s indicative of a real predilection, surely, but it also suggests a barrier that shamanism must explain, and that there is a logic for understanding it. I won’t doubt that we can somehow extend the evidence of “mental health recovery” from employing these mystical systems’ terms in order to explain things chronologically from start to finish. Or that we can’t find the overlap to most all of what is pertinetn that we have good record of via primitive and non-Western traditions, as neuroscience develops more honest, holistic approaches. I already have come to understand that spiritual healing techniques could not fail to answer the need for replacing the cults of authority operating in psychology and psychiatry unboundedly these days, with just a little determined legwork and site inspection done in careful ways. In turn, the harm reduction would prove tremendous, even if the key result was gaining more serious present understanding of the worth of medications in more estimably neutral conditions for evaluating their effects in individual cases. In everything from such unsupportable, and always vaguely informative and questionably valid diagnoses as those pushed onto us–diagnoses of nothing medically identifiable in causal terms–to the traditions of playing doctor and used wife salesman inaugurated by Freud, I can’t see how anyone thinks we can reform a purposefully repressive and oppressive system of teaching us what to like about ourselves by calling us these names. They only then stand to get revised a lot and never has one gotten explained properly that I know of, except to shoe that they bolster the authority of the physician, or give outs to clinicians all around for the tricky differences between “found” between them all. Yet I have struggled to see this done to my own benefit in all the likeliest best places until I just want to argue about it until the people insisting on its value to me go away. Additionally, for all novel the differences in terms of genuine reciprocity that could come into generally good public regard with this type of mediation of various practical efforts to help the mentally ill, the same standards could apply that make the energy healer’s counsel appear as real human relations work. For instance, in its remaining impersonal and provided according to systematic feedback to point out errors in learning new coping strategies correctly. Still, as much as science fires my imagination and encourages me to believe things only for a reason that leaves further questions possible, and inasmuch as mysticism only informs the mystic properly since experience just is its ultimate medium, I have to continue to call my judgment provisional about identifying spiritual crises as the equivalent in some systematic way of mental health ones. But I am definitely more enthusiastic to read your work now ahead of other books on the subject. Hopefully, that can work out to be pretty soon.

  • Hi Jobos, Thanks for declaring your interest in getting the facts straight–that is comforting indeed, and a good reminder to reconsider the truth of as well. Also, you should most definitely not think of any drug as possibly curing you of some mental disorder, as you probably know, since the idea of that proving to be the case is just incoherent if you understand what is meant by the myth of mental illness. None of them could heal you except that you did some work with your experience, and also somehow benefited from the drug experience by getting ideas you could only learn of that way. Doing work on yourself is what psychedelics tend to inspire, and so one would think that the literature that points that out would have more worth to re-investigating their potential benefits. It used to. The fact seems so essential, that if the researchers in the video haven’t stated it, I would just think “here we go again” with their keeping trade secrets about every little mental thing. The decade of the brain–what a sad joke. You can learn the most, probably, if–besides looking for that level of disclosure–you were to read descriptive literature that is not promoting any kind of trips and not supplying you with any knowledge of the means to do so for yourself, as I’m sure you have imagined. Also, from personal experience: when I entered college, since acid was around a lot, the school itself held a free seminar in which someone who knew the facts who was an academic gave us all the tips of what it would typically do to you when taken, and nothing bad was said. To my luck, drug awareness classes where I grew up also were handled like this, even by the female gym teacher, even in ninth grade. No kind of curse got put on the temptation to experiment, just lots and lots of facts and ideas came out about varieties of impairment and pleasure/displeasure from the intoxicating effects as seen in different situations, and mentions were made of the increased health risks from developing recreational habits. I advocate the abolition of drug laws, but “drugs of choice” is my attitude about what someone needs available, anyway, including in mental health practice. I think we should be willing to patiently convince persons about why drugs aren’t helping them as much as they think a lot more often ,and believe that compliance should never be forced. We should also never use childish word games to make ourselves feel big and smart, like calling forced injections “sedatives” when they are creepy tranquilizers.

  • Hi Someone Else – Just wanting to let you know that I meant to let you see that your statement got me up to speed because of how you connected with the meaning of empowerment in knowledge. I had intended not to explain the big picture so much as put the “other” half of the err on the safe side position into focus in terms that you introduced first. Unfortunately, as much as I love these conversations about controlled substances, that doesn’t keep me getting disgusted with myself when some passing traffic triggers a flashback sequence that sends my motor reflexes into action like it was fifteen years ago with me reacting to evade some riding mishap. This also sort of wipes my mind clean. Your carefully thought out comment hear provoked some good rational considerations of what some callers to an open line NPR show on this issue told me about both the lack of knowledge problem with opiates and doctors, their exaggeration of what suits themselves best to believe, and the view that pain can wait. So, if my statements don’t make literal sense enough, it’s because when my concentration disappeared, I just thought what I knew and said something. Like if you are in a workgroup where nothing exact has to get said. But I meant it. You are an accepting person, and also like to keep the facts straight, so please understand that my intentions were along the lines of that approach to. If we can’t meet doctors as equals with our best ideas and meaningful sources of information, so that they care to think of us as individuals and their equals, too, we are lost. And we can’t get as far with the asymmetry of their power to decide what is best for us versus bringing us to see what our real options are more definitely, and actually counselling us about those without prescribing. We could get the drugs we wanted for ourselves and don’t need their monkeyshines in the way is my position.

  • S. E., True. We have to home in on the side of this you’re attending to mostly in your comment, and emphasis on good informed consent is the perfect point to make explicit. The chief problem that is symbolic of the nature of the professional failings that add to the lack of informed consent epidemic has to do with physician’s not really very often at all understanding or caring to keep up to date on the difference between psychological dependence and addiction. One problem would be that all they think counts is what comes to them with their name on it as Dr. Y or X. The humanities sources on addiction like Jim Carroll’s Basketball Diaries and de Quincy’s Confessions of an English Opium Eater also lead you closer to keeping the facts straight, as long as you are not just a liar and don’t care what help you need to be. Since the problem here is really stubborn-ness and too much power, not the dangers of what people decide for themselves if they get information and have freedom to choose their way, responsibly, according to conscionable laws.

  • And peck. Yes, witch hunt is always good to bring up. So’s Carrie Nation and what Mother Nature intended. I suppose my approach was oblique in comment terms. But along this obvious front it connects well enough if you work at it. I hope you are doing better and feeling good, and nice to see you back.

  • Dr. Steingard, My appreciation for your informed and common sense set of considerations is very thoroughgoing. As for the abolition concept, wow, what a job to wield that term here. But it just intends outlawing psychiatry that can’t keep itself consensual and contractual. And one would think that meets close enough to absolutely to fit with perfectly comprehensible adjudicatory rules for the most exceptional varieties of need, and the principles that go with them. What passes for daily operations in hospitals right now is nothing like what suggests principles, except for pre-emptive retaliation. No efforts are made to see who got triply diagnosed who had some traumatically induced problems all the years that the major mental illnesses ruled the diagnostic day. But you are giving Will and everyone great advice, and I also agree with most of his of sentiments and judgments of what needs looked into more and done better. Your commenting and choice of words seems distinctly encouraging for continuing the debate. Much else said in the thread seems to me like taking the point of every point of Will’s discussion, no matter how far-reaching or evocative of new ideas, to stand for no other opportunity than chiefly to arrive at a popular consensus and declare a slam dunk.

  • Sally – Hi, I agree with your agreement. Barrab offers a tremendous alternative focus. Encouragingly presented, since it is so streamlined and he aims to stay precise. As for this corruption, the main corruption for us, how about the civil rights abuses? All the “care abuses” get supported and indeed enabled by the fact that the involuntary commiment strategies are terrifically corrupt and disempowering. The excuse-making that stands as your “legal benefit” with the (apparently only used by celebrities a lot) insanity defense, likewise as with the forced detentions, obviously is the psychiatrists game fixer, too. The idea of finding all the solutions with shifting payment schedules and retreading care with alternative services can’t work without finally this problem with using people to fit the agenda of the helping professions getting at least thought of.

  • This link is from the references for the article itself looks like the most general one for checking out the neuroscience behind using imagery for self-help. I thought the potential benefit vs. detriment was explained well in the article posted, but the surveyed run of ideas of how to keep clients “deciding right for themselves” about “how to get better” had its usual screwy undertones of “because then you needed us” showing up as their motivation from time to time.


  • Not only that with the environments through which you “encounter” them as part of the equation. Saying to your face or for you to hear that you don’t know what you are doing when you suggest you would rather leave your hospital behind or try some other therapy routine is exactly calling you stupid in terms of their jargon. And it isn’t just a substitute way of declaring you “not competent to stand trial” either. They mean that you are some sort of biological goof-up and so take the drugs, take the drugs, take the drugs, and when your insurance runs out you can go. John Nash is really hitting us with a nice favor, in diverting the focus to something so grand and proud to connect your spirit and potential life meaning to, isn’t he? NIce to see that kind of follow through with him, still.

  • Jill- Way to get on the issues front to back. The little mention of correspondence of results in animal studies is the right twist in the research side for all this, too. But that’s definitely not to miss saying that your quick delivery of the inside scoop on the recruitment and retraining measures implied by new regs is particularly great to have spelled out as well. You might believe my side of the story from the Breggin empathic conference in Michigan a couple of months back, and find it relevant considering the DEA side of the story here. That is the most outstandingly impressive story of great counselling work was from a self-trained for the job physician. (Breggin likes to suggest non-professional equivalency is attainable for plenty of counselling work.) Dr. Tom Ryan, pediatrician is steadily and as he tells it, very pleasantly working to counter the ADHD epidemic where he lives, from his position at the most viable entry point for keeping the story straight. He also describes himself as a full-fledged libertarian in the social causes arena. He said the he had simply resolved one night at home with his wife, who is also in pediatrics, to stop giving ADHD prescriptions and start explaining without exception that there was no such thing. He henceforth had proceeded to demonstrate in his offices that kids would listen to him and behave well in front of their parents if he was firm, respectful, and authoritative in their eyes, and his self-arranged promotion and implementation of this therapeutic-engagement measure was sitting at 100% success to date. Of course, the counselling generally had to get directed to not letting the parents lie to themselves about what the child’s sudden good behavior meant. The numbers were still climbing in the middle double digits for him, but he shows no interest in looking back and so he is bound to stand out like a real opponent of the system, more every day. He also assured me that his notion of the corrective way to go with all pharmaceutical abuse is to aim for total information availability and no prescription needed type of access, resulting in no in-office sales of proven efficacy that the doctor then endorses on the spot. Full deregulation, I take it, to keep the doctor tail from wagging the Pharma dog back into their offices over and over. Then the slick undermining of the doctor-client relationship can’t happen as we see it is bound to in the current environment, and also so as to ensure de-mystifying arrangements for any kind of drug dispensing arrangements–mass anti-addiction remedial treatments not excepted. What would that do here? Why is it scary? What kind of solution is the traditional regulatory model of picking and choosing of licensed authorities and the assigning of outlets–according to special privileges for these special people who then get to have their special regulation- worthy franchises?

  • Margaret, Like Alex says, it’s the one in a million insider that defeats the dehumanizing pranks–prolifically intended in textbooks and tests and licensing procedures–for classifying the life out of people. They might as well just let caregivers CLEP out if they swear by the words “I do” not to question any label and not to oppose any detention or coercive restraint of any type, just in case, no matter who says with their normal voice. “Let’s be sure to default toward the safety zone we keep the handiest” is close enough to be the motto at work here in these fifty states. Thank you for the challenging viewpoint on the causes and their meanings and the precise remarks.

  • Dr. Caplan, Many nuances obtain to the concept of informed consent in psychiatric and psychologically monitored clinical situations, so much differently than with medicine. This is another chance to question the description of behavioral healthcare as entailing medical diagnosis and having its treatments qualified as medical in nature. Focus on this issue now in reference to psychiatry as actually a pseudomedical effort should come to mean several book projects if there exists really widespread concern about psychiatric harms getting accounted for. Hegemonists for the establishment and do-gooders alike rely too often on obscuring the distinctions between medical understanding and the way psychiatric diagnosis depends on medicine as a prop. We need a publishing house to get a good editorial heads up about what is and isn’t working out as advocacy and care some time in this decade. Rereading your article reminds me that it is time for the big step from the expose’ to issuing progressive versions of the edicts for change.

  • Marie, You have real clarity in your perspective, so don’t let it slide. The concern you raise is valid and remains valid at the highest levels of deciding what is going on with people and how we should say anything about them–in the sciences of the mind, the philosophies of them, and the various academic critiques, too. Your comment is a pleasure to encounter here. I think Dr. Hickey stays cogent because his overall purpose is constrained by very clear principles. His effort to unmask fraud and shed light on the needless suffering psychiatry creates or ignores is made in a highly pragmatic fashion and according to principles that are very sound. Usually, sadly, in practice, the disease concept is very immediately made wholly literal, and then the supposed disease of mind just magically appears on paper and in every caregiver’s mind. It gets seen around the hospital and by everyone the labelled person ever meets again–almost everyone, that is. Since it is understood as the doctor’s province to declare this mental disease real and dangerous, the doctor will and does and let’s everyone know it however and whenever the doctor likes. Since it can’t be made to go away, the person is just there for this unpredictable and perniciously unhuman disease to make use of.

    Clearly, you see how that routine way of enforcing dependency and compliance works. I just wanted to say that Dr. Hickey to my way of thinking is consciously working toward a point that takes correct account of the facts in all his articles, including the demanding ones that your comment is concerned with. So his semantic discussion seems to me to be limited to the help that this part of deconstructing psychiatric rhetoric contributes for reaching the further goal of raising awareness of the drug plague, in particular, and of therapy for how it always counts. We can rely on him time and again for making more accurate representations of the whole truth than the mainstream bothers to promote. And he hardly represents some extreme of antipsychiatry, I should add. He wants the right processes to take effect so that behavioral healthcare means what it says when it says anything, and so that it works out to proves its value to external critics, too. Whether that can happen in our lifetime, except that all the external critics are happy credentialists just rubberstamping the policies of every other credentialist with some nifty entitlements that Obamacare enables for them all, seems like an open question to me.

  • Fast and fair, Dr. Hickey. Really great work. I wish we had more people going proxy for your kind intentions, so that the hotly critical language you give back to psychiatric slanderers wasn’t taken for attacking every single psychiatrist personally. To me, you are submitting testimony that helps anyone conscientious about how to try to be safe and helpful in their practice amid remarkably scandalous goings on. And I mean for securing their capacity to have independent voice as underlings to the professional KOLs. No doubt the trade journals and administration centers and professional groups see the few as needing safe haven over the many, and the many ordinary psychiatrists suspect this at times, but the little guys should learn to see how to get more out of your systematic critique in the run-up to making the idea of abolition more popular here. Maybe they will learn how to read it and talk it over less fearfully and bitterly one day at a time.
    Thank you for the inspiration yet again.

  • B – Listen, the fact is that zonker medication can bring feeling back into focus if you have gotten out there and too diffuse with it or too ungrounded or too estranged from what your anxiousness was about. Pick the description that seems to fit the imaginary or remembered case of getting uncomfortably out there with how your feelings start to resonate too shallowly with your body. The problem is the protocols thereafter the desired effect is achieved are too doctinaire and misguidedly applied. All is oversimplification in hospitals with the diagnostic assumptions programmed into the psych-bot squads. You have your “true” problem “unmasked” or since the “right” drug worked they know “which disorder” was “cured”, etc. Not only does this go on forever, it’s neverendingly a pitiful laugh and every bit as disturbing to contemplate as Someone Else suggests. But it’s a breeze to balance your remarks and include the fact of happy accidental moments of recovery happening simultaneously to getting treated for the inappropriate label. The hard thing is the hospital over there with the clueless hammering the powerless like they are human nails. My recovery of feeling on monkey barrel doses of Seroquel was inappropriate treatment protocol. But it worked. If we had good instead of totally entitlement-rentseeking doctors here, that would have gotten examined for potentially being an off-label prescription success. But let’s not start asking questions too fast, mad doctors! But for my flipping out about having lost my perspective to depersonalized reflections and whatever else, since episodes of panic used to visit me a lot, just overlapping and repeating on top of each other, and determine all sorts of quasi-attention deficits and space me out worry me, the Seroquel just the one time was worth it. The culprit bottomline was massive stress, though, so that doesn’t mean Seroquel answered as the necessary thing, it just was the thing tried. Sedatives proper would probably have been better, but Oh, no, not that.

    So, anyway, as I sit recalling this, it’s also the case that my emotions are percolating less distractingly in regard to how come there is so little very fine-grained criticism aimed at the decrepit paradigm from within, from the academy, & from the press. And that’s good. We see more of our share of the telling signs of the mental health industry under fire because of the labors of, generally speaking, very true critics here on MIA, and necessarily also see more to general significance of the intermittent or even steadily increasing appearance of overt criticism in the wider free press. But it’s like we are seeing the pregnant women more now that the neighbor is showing. On the other side of the coin, people who haven’t gotten forced or blithely duped into using the standard run of assembly line services are themselves as unalerted as ever to the exact height of the conflict between those dismissive of psychiatry-led behavioral science culture, and its greatest lackeys.

  • Let me tell you where head is at, basicalky, about general things that apply to me and my own case, Someone Else, so that you can see what points of your own you can connect from. I don’t want to go into the what happened question in detailed respects, but everything wrong with me is something occasioned by abuse, bad medicine (juju would have been better in the end) and talking cures (there have been clearly positive and “life-saving” exceptions, but more waitresses, cops, lawyers, and bus drivers have listened with natural interest and helpful feedback overall), and imminently fatal endangerments throughout my life (such is life). Some of these violent encounters were hostile and intended, but mostly it was accidental and traffic related sudden threats of death, dismemberment or disfigurement that seemed to set the standards for maladaptive reactions much later on, and the disabling CNS functioning that came on eventually with repeated doses of lousy treatment and malicious intent aimed at me later on–and that order is significantly causal, here, btw. That I didn’t cause a single one of these incidents suggests that they get called bad luck. Ok with me, in survivor terms, unforgiveable in justice terms. Certainly an eye for an eye is also not adequate. What you need is to alterations in the scheme of things and how people themselves have re-formed, and now repudiate their former antisocial justifications for themselves and their wrongdoings. That my response wasn’t to mope, shiver, and complain a lot made me worth less for people who say they like to help by talking to you, I do believe. But if anyone needs to mope, complain, and shiver, I feel sorry for them, too. I never saw a lot of acceptance going on, although tuning in to tge exceptional moments for myself and others and respecting and appreciating genuinely good listeners was and is my thing. You have to include the basic humanity of anyone who shows that in your vision of the possible, you know. Nevertheless, as far as licensed mental health professionals who have influenced my chances in life, what they could have helped with but instead didn’t, I could never see how to fathom, and all this incredible impatience of mine was for was just that they would try giving me advice about my cognitive issues and point out how to learn more about my problems (in thinkibg, feeling, and behaving) over all. That sounds so simple, but it was impossible to get done by shopping around for “relationships” any better or any more than I could trust myself to do as unlicensed efforts for myself. Mostly this was because of incompetence in clinical practice, strictly speaking, at least insofar as anything that I would train and give license to were I charged with the responsibility. Hence, the main issues with poor services in the fields in question stem from problems engendered and maintained by the total manifestation of the liberal Academy with its pretexts of self-sufficiency in preparing tomorrow’s workforce and the grand wizardry of its so hotly competitve inner workings. Next most often harmful for me, after outright inadequate preparation for their job, were the too often strange and unfriendly attitudes and bureaucratic mindsets pervasive throughout the industry, often enough worn like the cultural badge of honor it has eventually become. Last and least were the systemic problems associated with managed care. Go here, No, now there, Sorry, those were two good sessions but I have to switch to another town to practice, and my favorite, “Where is Doctor Lisa ______?” “Oh, you’re back with Dr. Joe.” What a laugh. And they mainly work in group formation to get you isolated from yiur natural support system, and work together to make sure they sell you drugs, and just their drugs, like it or not. What a lost cause. Anyway, my issue very briefly as it corresponds to self-interests that keep you yourself busy learning how to study the Big Biz in the decade of the Brain (when is that not? I want to know), returns to this…. The best description of my problem in living in its main aspects shows up in a very good description of a long dead psychiatrist in the opening pages of the CBT manual for DPAFU, and the information is all downhill from there. The PTSD manual from the same clinical group really is not very good for much, but Oh, the measurements! and Oh, the science! is all we hear. For my part, I see the evaluation and exercise instructions to rather poorly encompass the psychiatrist’s appreciation of the phenomenality of the experiences assigned to the types of disorder. Understanding that it is some total kind of arrangement of disorder that I live and not some discrete and separable disorder that I have it definitely one very central fact that helps me to know, but these books like most caregivers everywhere just go along with whatever make believe is most expedient for them and their careers to go along with. I have understood that my disorder of agency can wholly be described as abnormal deviations in what is called intentionality in theories of agency and consciousness. But the manual approaches and vast majority of clinicians narrow very nearly everything down to fit the mapped out service options wherever anybody lives, and these all have first to do with doctors and other caregivers and assistants earning a name for themselves (of course only so much of one, it’s not glamorous in very many instances) and their paycheck and their scrubs. They get to live the unblemished life without those terrifically reassuring and inconspicuous labels, most of them. Many do know how to turn that into a thrill, too, I promise. Oh, these so hard to come by facts about these trades, what a bother. Most of the folks actally know very few right things to look for to see the unique aspect of any case they help to handle, and most contribute nothing but business as usual in the form of rounds of say-so to their clients and their charges, although mere smiles keep some people from going berzerk or ending their lives, I’m pretty sure. But I doubt you can help anyone whose needs are serious, over the long run, by making believe with them that there are these classes of drugs for these kinds of diseases and altogether alarming and bona fide threats that they don’t realize they probably are intending to carry out, and the doctor guessed them, so they have to stay locked up–and call that modern, humane care and bill them for it, and do a lot of good. But it is what is going on, mainly, all finally to prove that stigma is really bad and has to be fought with your help, too, by staying compliant and showing string dedication to the saviors one and all. Thanks for showing some old-fashioned curiosity, S. E. That’s like a weight off my shoulders.

  • Mark – I think you’re right, and that no matter the particulars of how sufficiently correct and true your idea is, what the necessary conceptions for reliably determining psychopathology are, they have to meaningfully indicate that the dogmatic conception of behavioral symptoms as medically decisive ones is the central theoretical and practical flaw in the curriculum for the behavioral sciences, and the incredible inappropriateness of the expensive approaches to behavioral healthcare we see now. Thought, feeling, and behavioral symptoms become pathenogenic entities in bad explanations, and then both the problems in living and the person at odds with themselves in the world are lost sight of. This is indeed the thought deriving from the mental habit of putting people into molds that fit their label. That is how mental illness gets construed as a reactive feature of physical processes in the brain, instead of a facon de parler and a myth. That is how people keep getting injured and killed, by legally mandated treatments, and by simpler, not infrequently well intended efforts to get people to accept the help they need to straighten themselves out, although so very plainly and liberally misguided efforts, no matter the body count. And never mind the loss of moral dignity and free choosing of their own purposes. Thanks for remembering the debacle going on here in the less free than ever country so clearly and instructively.

  • S. E. – Doctors also act in order to appear familiar with what they believe is expected of them. I hope Drs. Moncrieff, Steingard, and Jeremy Wallace, maybe evetually Jospeh Tarantolo get around to elaborating on the further points that your commentary indicates for what the doctors assume and claim to believe. These first three tend to discuss lots of examples of their fellows missing the point of their data sets and patient records, and acting wrongheaded in prescribing, and not questioning enough theoretically. But I hope they start getting around more to just how bad the average psychiatrist is at their job. If the psychiatrists I had seen running hospital wards and doing med checks had been sensible and willing to think for themselves, even without going into the myth of mental illness to straighten their staff’s attitudes out, they could have kept Robert Whitaker from having this job as the voice of psych reform. That is also why I think he should try to get that idea straight and talk about it. Szasz wasn’t someone who left the brain out of consideration, he thought that medicine doesn’t kick in except to isolate and remediate local physically pathological conditions of the body or the social conditions of epidemic contagion, which is not all medicine does but is right of course.

  • squash – I think you’d like that book, form other things you say, and it certainly makes for a snug fit with the whole history and mythology of psychiatry, on purpose. I wanted some context that you might have felt some need for with this headline, too, I mean in that in reacting to the article, your comment asserts the attitude of taking a step back to get a better angle for approaching the message implied, since it is intended to reach more than just us, the psych industry, & the popular press audience. Lots of cultural mythos jumps out if you are apt to consider the force of representations. Again, the cited book….

  • Margie – Your project keeps sounding like the very apt challenge to the system I suspect it will be, and imagining how it will turn out suggests to me plenty of dynamic innovations in sharing the survivor perspective on fighting for your dignity, sanity, zand not least of all your life. I was thinking you might find some value in this link to a paper which by contrast highlights credible formal psychological explanation of how you can come to find yourself haplessly “living the label” of your disorder. While still seeming very uniquely personable because of the ethnological interviews appended, the theoretical points appear succinctly illustrated in seeing how these survivors are caught up in running the gamut of decentered and displaced sense of social identity. You and your cohorts in the Dignity project may enjoy it. I found it very helpful to encounter earlier in my life when it felt like getting away from the oppressive and limiting feelings needing managed care would never happen.


    I appreciate your supportive attitude here on MIA and feel so impressed by your careful work and professional experience, and especially by what people mean to you.

  • Dr. Berezin, you bring us a circle, here. I am sure that our first conscious experience of Mother’s gaze upon us is how we originally become acquainted to all the meanings we learn to attach to the concept of beauty, seen around us in the world, and then sometimes, not often enough, apprended as the touchstone residing within ourselves, remembered for who we humanly are.

  • Feeling: the right background for conceptual integration. If you have the right idea in the wrong frame of mind, you’re not going to get much done with it. I know that. Feeling grounded to the Earth seems most closely analogous to the phase of your seconds old infancy, that puts you securely into relationship with your Mother’s holding arms. (Be you both so lucky.) Love has to be free for us to come by, in terms of flowing feeling for another, and not just unconditionally motivated in how we direct our loving regards to those others whom we most love and care for.

    “Find the cost of freedom buried in the ground…” A perfect CSNY song for whoever misses their mother or anyone else’s from where they find themselves today.

  • Mickey – As smart as the first time I read it, and my comprehension of your comment is only more robust, for what concerns you point to and draw upon in providing needed qualifications for Mr. Braterman’s points, here. Since, as Ted always stresses, it’s about turning the thought into action. Thanks a lot (again), as well as in memory of Kenneth Braiterman.

  • Ted – Thanks for commenting at length, and getting so many points across in sympathy for the different perspectives on goals and outcomes needed from this point forward. How is this for a historical parallel? Remember how doctoring and curative surgical procedures took on meaning in early modern times with barbering. Barbers would lance your boils for some coin, then? What did we get later… doctors who wouldn’t wash their hands before “helping” birthing mothers with delivery, just about? Along with that they wouldn’t let midwives practice. Finally, in or around the Civil Rights Era, always keeping in step with the times, they went gungho for hysterectomies to cure every female complaint so-named, so that they could use it to hang their hat on … and their diagnoses on. Psychiatry is going through all the same advantage seeking and betrayals of trust at even higher rates of malfeasance and ever greater magnitudes of indifference toward harms visited on their own real neighbors. For certain, this indicates the protracted evil of dissolute corporate expansiveness and routine victimization of the less infranchised, all stemming from calling people’s brains their faultily constructed personality organ and getting it thought of as their God-given weakness. Next, in insisting that all the work is medical, and letting that stand true as demonstrated by there connectedness to power and authority proves, the mental healthcare incrowds busily join together in identifying the broken brain as the “thinking organ” they must carefully diagnose and expertly “treat”. Back in the day, you might have needed an amputation, and the surgeon got rough, so you would insult him behind his back long and hard. Then you could maybe show up at his early modern surgical convention and finally let him have it to his face. “You goddamned Barber!”, you could say. We have the role of heirs to such well-considered progressive innovations, too, as psychiatric survivors, having existed unintentionally as the patients who are recipients of the same types of mismatched derivations of applied treatment protocols as were the hapless “failures” and the first “saved” surgical patients were. But rather than boils for lancing giving way to bones for sawing, we stand to receive instead the kinds of attention for problems in living that stem from practices of torture and Frankensteinian conceptions of our genetics, so that clinicians can take us to be mere organisms existing in necessarily malconfigured states. But luckily, tgey maintain, we are at least waiting with justified hope on the soon to be made known optimal performance standards for our type of defective, so that we can have our illness explained right and voted on. Then we can get saved by psychiatry, instead of being failures who need restrained. Totally awesome, they teach, their new interns, we mentally ill people can enjoy the modern privilege of holding on until the doctors can succeed to fix us more right than Nature got us made. The ECT, drugs, and breaking of our wills in compliance regimens that are legally mandated–meanwhile, do wonders for Psychiatry’s humanely drawn future image, when the needed corrections to our brains, minds, and personalities more perfectly than ever will make us “safe” and “insightful” welcome citizens. From barbers to surgeons with the medical doctors, from blood-letting and castrating to saying “maybe we should talk more, now, after all,” with the psychiatrists. All of it thanks to demanding change from the people in charge more adamantly than we are asking them for better proof of wise intentions in the first place, and more clear analysis of the true results which they use to justify their efforts. But just until now–thanks so much to Robert Whitaker, we are asking about those results loud and long at last. The wise intentions from the industry and its governmental bureaucratic partners still are lacking, though, we can’t help but notice. Many of our differences of attitude and comfort level with what we’re all fighting and doubts about how to do it, appear because of how that affects us each differently, I think, … the not knowing: we feel our willingness to dialogue, see their accusing us of self-righteousness and refusing to dialogue, who really aren’t available to negotiate terms, anyway. The most credentialled and influential have connections to Power and drug marketing kickbacks. But they all across the country have parity fee coverage protection now, don’t they? The nicer ones, who we aren’t so mad at, in the greater numbers have these benefits in pretty standard form, too. We’re stuck here as survivors, until the systematic entitlements go away, along with the illusion of better moral judgment by licensed experts in forced drugging campaigns and the lie of actual medical revolutions in psychiatric services.

  • S. E. I think it is more simply just what inverse means, as in when you talk about gravity or light getting more or less intense according to the “inverse” significance of the distance relations between the light or gravity “source” (since it takes two to gravitate, or to get light to shed light upon something actually gotten seen in the light) and the “object” receiving the illumination or getting attracted (more than the “main” gravity source gets attracted by it). Let’s see what B says back in clarification, if he does, and figure more of your question out though for what it means for your theories of what couldn’t be right about what you were told by doctors, and what you understand is right to believe. I can’t immediately see what B is bringing in about Stockholm sybdrome that bears upon your question relative to the inverse relationships that qualify the survey reported on here. At least, I can’t see right off the bat what experiences he means it to account for that are “inversely”effective on perceived outcomes intended to be “good work” done on mental patients.

    Very simply, the statement you offered in quotes means what you would guess by thinking in analogy with the mathematical terms for force and light dispersion getting Weaker with More distance, and Stronger with Less distance. The inverses in the equations are about the Weaker effects corresponding to the More distant conditions in the respective physical systems, and the Stronger effects to the Less distant conditions.

    So, the good “high” quality of therapeutic relationships meant simultaneously Less hostility or symptom severity factored in the determination. When the judgment reflected More hostility and/or Greater symptom severity, then the reported therapeutic relationship quality was “low” and therefore bad… in correspondence to how the symptoms that were present were bad ones and the hostile feelings meant “No dice if Ihave to keep talking to this jerk.”

  • Margie, per your added commentary and insightful reactions to how Nancy spelled out her convictions and beliefs, I want to say you have a great sense of the value to every moment for how it matters for good. You really make things doubly worth paying attention to several times over that were effectively strong messages to begin with, amidst much clamor in the surrounding social world. In the most matter of fact terms, Thomas Szasz described that he looked at cases like Nancy’s, like he would look at mine or Chris Reed’s and the whole range of them for any others, and what he saw was the proof of the validity of his critique of the psychiatric mind control system. He saw what really happens, that if psychiatry gets its way with labels and coercion, you end up with prosecutions of persons for having mental illness itself. You can get prosecuted not just for delusion about “having” the mythical disease and seemingly remaining a threat for letting it fester and get uglier and more contagious. You get prosecuted for schizophrenia, bipolar, dissociation., and so forth, outright. That is the ultimate consequence and the mainspring of the attracting powers of widespread adherence to and tolerance of the medical model coupled to the many orthodox pychological approaches that endorse it. These clinicians’ strategic goal as revealed here by Nancy’s story, and in the endless number of other courtroom farces, once these caregivers finally decide they cannot get to your run your life and bill you for it any other way, is to run you into the wall of nonsense that means you aren’t allowed to think or ask questions. At one and the same time that you suffer distress according to the “Law”, you are not allowed to have this real distress under the same Law. But the doctors can get to have you and put your chances for health freedom fast asleep, as many cases of this doing of time for no purpose illustrate. Very significantly, the majority of hospital doctors are not just insensitive in taking your freedom away from you, they are also terrible at their caregiving and diagnosing and prescribing job to begin with. Because they don’t have to be good at it, do they? This is all definitely so much more than the implication of health bondage. Getting prosecuted for bipolar is Kafkaesque at its heart and totalitarian in its aims, behind its Nanny State pseudo-care image. Health freedom now! is right.

  • Rob – On that note, I myself would offer a rejoinder to another person commenting in respect to the feed of information you have selected if it weren’t put so as to immediately catch your eye–most likely anyway, to see what their comment was about. Mainly people are not through with the bygone, much less the inaccurate, invalid, and obscure passed off for pure wisdom, until they decide on the positive emphasis they like for themselves and are understanding where to put it more determinedly or more in depth. My idea of what to feature if covering your responsibilities would certainly not come from more of a grand plan, and nothing else than what tends to appear has seemed needed, except what plainly wouldn’t work for updates from/on pertinent news. The related posts selections are also adequately available, I believe, to satisfy “the embarrassment of riches” kind of motivation had by the more acquisitive subscribers here, who are presently reinforcing their views or clarifying and weighing their personal position statements a lot on myriad things.

  • Ok, super attention getting and it really seems about time for research like this. The kind of boost to the imaginations of scientists, given amplification by real specifically focused breakthroughs to new investigative modes of work such as this, is very worth the anticipation. Also, as science fiction has shown, class wars come to be fought over just such scientific knowhow as this could turn out to mean. Hopefully, follow-up reports and commentary are standing by for understanding the connections to our already real one.