Friday, November 27, 2020

Comments by Berzerk

Showing 107 of 107 comments.

  • My point is that the author here is caricaturing “schizophrenia” as a paranoid, delusional, hallucinating man. Something we can do without. It may be the case, that after someone has been locked up, abused and injected with neuroleptics for 6 weeks in an environment designed to drive you crazy, he or she may, whilst withdrawing from the drugs on the outside, come across as a bit confused for a while.

  • “Changing our environment may imply various initiatives. At a personal level it can be about leaving some social settings (work, school, leisure activities, and even family) and entering new ones.”

    I don’t think the success of Open Dialogue in Western Lapland was to tell their patients to disown their family, give up their job or academic pursuits, friends, hobbies, etc. and move to another city / country.

  • “Schizophrenia is a contested diagnosis that captures a diverse range of experiences, often characterized by psychotic symptoms, such as paranoia, delusions, or hallucinations.”

    I will repeat what I have said before. The “psychotic” symptoms you mention as characteristic of “schizophrenia”, were regarded as (only possible) secondary manifestations to the 4 A’s Bleuler mentioned over 100 years ago: abnormal associations, autistic behavior and thinking, abnormal affect and ambivalence. Psychiatry has attempted to reclassify the “disease” to conform with their “treatment” of choice, i.e. antipsychotics.

  • “Because of these studies, the image of schizophrenia as a “chronic,” “life-long” disease was problematized, because these new studies emphasized that people could in fact recover.”

    Eugen Bleuler coined the term “schizophrenia” to replace the earlier “dementia praecox” specifically because people did recover. Weren’t those psychiatrists in the 70’s and 80’s aware of this? I suppose since the standard practice of a daily 10mg dose of haldol became common practice, they had to reassess.

  • No, you are correct, there is actually evidence that cannabis is neuroprotective in low doses due, in part, to it’s antioxidant effects.

    But, would you agree that a therapeutic dose of an antipsychotic, like olanzapine or risperidone, does indeed cause brain damage (in addition to the myriad other side effects) and is (potentially) far more harmful than a few joints per day?

  • Marcello, I would caution you on using such generalizations. Cannabis has many flavors. Some (today) have extremely high THC content, the reality of cannabis is not the same as it was 30 years ago. There is plenty of evidence that adolescents and young adults are negatively (in terms of memory, concentration, motivation, etc.) impacted by regular cannabis use. However, if we were to compare daily cannabis use (at the end of a day) to neuroleptics like olanzapine or aripriprazole (with an elimination half life of about 75 hours), the latter are far more damaging.

    I’m not sure what you mean by a “long term brain disorder”, though. It must be psychiatric terminology, which is always suspect.

  • ” … we should all be able to agree that using the lowest dose of the fewest number of medications necessary to achieve improvement makes good sense.”

    You didn’t say anything about the duration of the treatment. I would consider that to be crucial when discussing psychiatric medication (which alter brain chemistry) given the fact that, over time, the brain adapts to the presence of the toxic substance(s).

    It took a long time for (most) doctors to realize (admit) benzodiazepines should not be prescribed for more than a few weeks at a time.

  • “the nature of any reality is changed by the presence of an observer”

    I was referring to that. But I get your meaning, by “any reality”, you are excluding human behavior (or even plants). It’s a bit bizarre, but ok.

    Here is a famous quantum theorist squirming when asked about magentism:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

    I learned a lot about slippery surfaces, but not much more. Notice the interviewer asked first “why” magnetism happens, and then “how” it happens. The quantum theorist concentrates on the “why” and goes into a long monologue about aunt Minny. It suggests he doesn’t have a good answer to the “how”. And there is a reason for that. Most (if not all) of the technology we have today is attributed to people who were marginalized, like Tesla and Heaviside.

  • Looking for genetic markers in the way “academic psychiatry” does, is eugenics, pure and simple (but the worst form, cowardly). If the treatment is to lie, lock you up, gaslight you and “seize” your brain with neuroleptics (which have become even more outlandish with the atypicals), nothing good can come from it.

    A great 18th century western philosopher (Kant), whose hobby was anthropology, had this to say:

    “The Negroes are born white, apart from their genitals and a ring around the navel, which are black. During the first month blackness spreads across the whole body from these parts.”

    In 1775 he attributed the causes of “red,” “black,” and “yellow” skin colors to the presence of mineral iron deposits at the subcutaneous level of the body. Then by 1785 he argues that the presence of an inflammable “substance,” phlogiston, in the African’s blood makes the skin color “black” and, by analogy and extrapolation, is assumed to be responsible for the skin color of other “races” as well.

    Two luminaries of the 21st Century discuss the “big problem” facing humanity:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF8F7tjmy_U

    One (on the left) reminds me of a vampire, the other (on the right) an alien life form (from a comic strip).

  • “To clarify, an individual’s decision to voluntarily take psychiatric drugs is none of my business.”

    That would explain why your “12 facts about psychiatry” don’t deal with the biological ramifications of most psychiatric treatment.

    How on earth does someone voluntarily take a neuroleptic, if no-one informs them honestly of what the long-term effects are (I’m talking about only a few years here).

    Your making too many assumptions when you say “voluntarily”. A statement, that in my view, is dangerous.

  • Claiming GP’s have just been mislead by the “flawed theories” of psychiatry is, to me at least, a very naive statement (given that most of the prescriptions for antidepressants are from GP’s). I’m not going to let GP’s off the hook that easily. You could make the same argument for every pharmaceutical drug they (rightly or wrongly) prescribe. Which, to be honest, is their main business.

    GP’s, at least in my country, make a bundle each year on the flu vaccine. I suppose, they are also innocent in that respect. Another highly controversial form of medical intervention. The debate largely fueled by money interests. The GP’s get their annual cut, and don’t have to do anything except to keep their mouth shut.

    If you have a urinary infection, the GP will try at least 2 antibiotics before culturing the urine to see which bacteria is causing the infection. The logic being based on statistical probability. Is that science?

  • “In addition, more and more people are being prescribed “antidepressants” without receiving any psychiatric diagnoses.”

    I don’t see why this is a “fact about psychiatry”. It just confirms what I said. Antidepressants and neuroleptics will still be used independent of hypothesis or theories coming out of academic psychiatry. Psychiatrists are not stupid, that is why Ms. Moncrieff is promoting the “drug-centered” approach. Concentrating on the “science” (which you correctly say is flawed) and arguing from that basis, is actually what they want you to do (smoke screens). I think psychiatrists are well aware that the “chemical imbalance” marketing propaganda is mostly a lie. Lying is not the same as believing.

  • “This assumes the medical profession would continue believing psychiatry’s theories are valid.”

    “The “treatments” GPs rely upon are undergirded by flawed theories propagated by psychiatry.”

    Not necessarily, if one takes a drug-centered approach to psychotropic drugs (as opposed to a disease-centered one), which seems to be what Joana Moncrieff and others argue for in support of their continued use.

  • You are a psychologist, attacking psychiatry in this way, at least to me, seems like an attempt to elevate psychology above it’s main rival. Attacking mainly the biological aspect reflects the fact psychologists don’t have a licence to prescribe pharmaceuticals. You concentrate on antidepressants, which also suggests you (as a psychologist) are targeting a niche sector of the mental health market.

    I’ve met (and been friends with) quite a few people on antidepressants (on them for many years). They don’t want to hear my arguments. They prefer to feel victimized, reinforced by their regular meetings with a psychologist. Mostly, it’s the GP who prescribes the antidepressant and refers the client to a psychologist. Psychiatry never enters the picture.

  • Some parts of this article are a bit confusing / misleading. At a certain point you claim that most prescriptions for antidepressants are written without the person ever being diagnosed, then in a later point you share information that most people walking around today will develop a diagnosable mental disorder.

    Where do you stand? Should we be diagnosing more aggressively? Should the GP always refer to a psychiatrist and not prescribe an antidepressant him / her self? Is prescribing legitimate if there is a diagnosis?

    According to your facts about psychiatry, it would seem about 80% of the problem of prescribing antidepressants (a harmful placebo) lie outside psychiatry, with GP’s and other prescribers being the main culprits. If psychiatry disappeared it would most likely have a negligible effect.

  • ” … there is not a crisis of mental disorders, there is a crisis created by the burdens and obstacles that the system created …”

    This has been building up since at least the 1980’s, and it’s not just limited to mental health. It’s the entire health system that’s in crisis.

    These days, if I visit a GP, they spend most of their time (upwards of 90% during a consultation, which is limited to at most 20 minutes) typing aggressively on a keyboard communicating with the “oracle”.

    Psychiatrists don’t have to consult an “oracle”, they don’t really need much of anything to diagnose or prescribe. It doesn’t really matter to them. It’s the wheel of (mis)fortune for the hapless subject.

  • A quote (I don’t know if he actually said this), Tesla made about Einstein:

    “Einstein’s relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king… its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”

  • If I observe a priest, or a sports teacher, or a swimming instructor (sexually) abusing a child, I’m not going to blame myself (partially) for observing the act just because I was a witness (or observer) to it. I would, however, be complicit, if I didn’t try to stop it. If I stop it, it doesn’t change the nature (or intent) of the act that was in progress.

    I am responding to this:

    “the nature of any reality is changed by the presence of an observer, hence seeking any objective answer to such a question is impossible”.

  • Schizophrenia, when the “diagnosis” was coined by Bleuler, had very little to do with what most people think it means today. It was seen as a “spectrum”, and was essentially characterized by chaotic thought processes. Hallucinations and delusions were seen as secondary. Today, in order to frighten the general public, the emphasis has completely shifted. It’s a way for the psychiatric profession to legitimize prescribing their so-called “antipsychotics”. Prescribing the “antipsychotics” indefinitely is a very devious (evil?) way to then be able to claim schizophrenia is a devastating brain disease.

  • I had an interesting experience with a (mental) health worker (over a period of some months). I began slowly confiding (of sorts) in him. Even bought him lunch a few times. I won’t get into the details, but it was the wrong thing to do. I did give the whole organization he was working for a piece of my mind.

    Confiding in a psychiatrist (the top of the pyramid) is almost always guaranteed to be disastrous.

  • ” .. using the labels in a manner that produces a useful understanding, which in standard mental health practice would require that the understanding produced by the use of the labels be significantly more beneficial to the labeled person rather than the labeler …”

    “Ultimately, it’s that very last part that is so troubling in its absence when psychiatric diagnoses are typically utilized.”

    Given the huge market and interests of the pharmaceutical industry, and it’s influence on politics, it should come as no surprise to anyone that this is the case. Psychiatrists rely almost solely on pharmaceuticals to “treat” their patients. It’s quite consistent to conclude psychiatry labels and treats for their own benefit aided by marketing and questionable research from the pharmaceutical industry. A kind of symbiotic relationship to the detriment of the patient.

  • Here is Obama’s moral argument for destroying a whole country (Libya):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwPi3jK-kRw

    “Gadaffi declared he would show no mercy to his own people. He compared them to rats and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishement …”

    Here is what Gadaffi actually said:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gILP12qdIl0

    “We must fight these enemy rats who will be defeated in armed combat. Young people of Tripoli, fight them from street to street, ally to ally, house to house, with guns and pistols they will be neutralized …”

    Instead this gentleman with a PhD wants you to concentrate on this:

    “I didn’t say a date….I said it’s going away and it is going away.”

    A statement Trump made in relation to the corona virus.

    I can see why Dan Kriegman refers to his readers as “folks”.

  • “The point is that, though I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Caplan, the issue about labeling folks requires a great deal of nuance.”

    I will read the article in more detail, and comment, but this is akin to saying blacks should accept slavery, and to keep them as slaves, you need to use more nuanced forms of persuasion or deceit.

    Who are those people you refer to as “folks”?

    Why don’t you begin and end by explaining why you “wholeheartedly” agree with her article?

  • Just to make it clear. I didn’t respond to you by mistake. There is a certain amount of nesting possible with comments (a comment to a comment, I’m not talking about bird nests). It necessitates using the last reply button up in the hierarchy when the nesting has reached it’s limit. It’s less confusing for others who are browsing through the comments.

    You might consider subscribing to all comments from a particular article. I find it helpful if the topic of the article (in general) interests you.

  • I’m not disagreeing with your distinction, but it’s more of a philosophical distinction than pure logic. It’s based on accepting the “medical model” of illness (correct me if I’m wrong) as the correct model medicine should adhere to, which is very reductionist. Accepting psychiatry as a legitimate field of medicine is mostly just a social contract.

  • Narcissist or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. What’s the difference? I’m not asking which of the two are listed in the DSM, or how psychiatry profits from diagnostic labeling, I’m asking, what’s the difference?

    Everyone knows the DSM consists of a group of people voting on what characterizes a certain diagnostic label. An “educated” opinion. You validate the DSM process of consent by vote when you say “many people share my opinion”. What’s the difference?

  • If you take the DSM seriously and attack it’s unscientific nature based on what’s written there, you fall into it’s trap. It’s like battling against windmills. A smoke screen. Just like fake politics. Democrats versus Republicans. Trump was actually a huge miscalculation. In Europe, there is the same game being played in politics, a lot of promises, but once in power, everything changes.

  • Getting back to psychiatric terminology. Let’s take schizophrenia as an example. The DSM description of it is intentionally confusing (it’s actually intentionally moronic). There is a reason why Eugen Bleuler coined the phrase. It goes back millennia and has to do with his philosophical or religious beliefs. I haven’t seen anyone discuss that aspect of it. If something could be described as “evil”, it’s the word schizophrenia. Psychiatry is a religious cult. And, like any cult, it punishes those they see as a threat.

  • If you read it, and like to discuss confirmed cases and cases, and the significance of distinguishing between the two, have politicians and the media exaggerated the severity of the pandemic? Based on the link I sent, and the information there? Not just in the US.

    For example, it links to an article from Japan, where it’s estimated that between 450 to 900 times more people were infected than what you call “confirmed cases”.

    You didn’t comment on the Imperial College model which predicted up to 2,000,000 deaths in the US alone. Altered source code (by Microsoft) of the model was posted on Github. The point is, not that they got it wrong, but the model was awful. They suggest insurance companies are much better suited to make such predictive models.

  • “(this is the craziest of the quotes, as it conflates “cases” and “confirmed cases” and pretends only the latter matter)”.

    He’s not conflating, he just used the wrong words. When he says “when you test you have a case”, it’s obvious (at least to me) he means “confirmed case”.

    I’m not going to discuss politics. Which is why I disliked this article and responded to it.

    Calling people crazy, evil, and all those other words and pretending that’s ok, and then opposing psychiatric diagnostic wording, is, at least to me, the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Some of my comments don’t show up for some reason. Trump set up a task force to deal with the Corona virus spread. It was (set up in late January) headed by former pharmaceutical lobbyist Alex Azar. You can look up who the others are. Including Fauci. Trump isn’t smart (or dumb) enough to have made all those decisions himself. Emphasizing Trump distracts from what the real motive behind all this is. Other countries are making the same (apparent) blunders.

    In any case, the article was about dangerous behavior and neurological impairment. I can’t wait for the presidential debate between Biden and Trump (I’m not taking sides here). Didn’t Biden recently say (you can find it online) that over 80,000 have lost their jobs during the crisis.

    Finally here’s a video excerpt from someone with a solution for everyone that won’t take their vaccine (I won’t comment on it):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyXuPwsLGWI

  • In terms of dangerous behavior of Trump causing over 20,000 deaths directly due to his handling of the pandemic (if it can even be called a pandemic), since you know what per capita deaths mean, according to official death counts from Covid-19, Belgium, Spain, Italy, the UK, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden, all rank higher than the US. You could say Trump (if you want to put the blame on one person) is doing better than any of these countries. It would, at the least, suggest something else is going on. Are the death counts attributed to Covid-19 accurate? Or, is something more sinister going on?

    Why would all these countries promote an experimental vaccine as (in the words of Bill Gates) the ultimate solution? Do you see how insane that is?

    And what does Bill Gates know about biology and medicine? His Windows operating system is riddled with vulnerabilities.

  • You said: “… are all on display in his astoundingly harmful response to the pandemic. His dangerousness has directly contributed to the deaths of tens of thousands and to longterm health and economic problems for many more.”

    If you didn’t mean to say it had anything to do with his public comments on HCQ, then I stand corrected. Which dangerous behavior directly led to > 20,000 deaths?

    On a side-note, I found the video where you got the idea that Trump has the nuclear codes and could suddenly use them in a fit of rage. It was an interview with a psychiatrist and an author of one of Trump’s books.

  • My justification would be this: From your initial comment on Trump with regards to HCQ, from what you say, at least 25% of deaths in the US from Covid-19 are attributable to HCQ alone or in combination with those needing HCQ for other diseases and not being able to get them at the pharmacy due to a shortage.

    Here’s an article from Forbes:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniesarkis/2020/04/13/trumps-hydroxychloroquine-focus-causes-a-shortage-for-others/#3a525262539e

    There is no evidence in the article that there was actually a shortage. It’s fear mongering. Also, the article mentions remdesivir, without any evidence remdesivir is a promising treatment. Why would promoting remdesivir for Covid-19 not lead to a shortage. HCQ is on the list of essential medicines, which (I assume) means it’s more readily available worldwide.

  • Well, I would submit this for the area of physics:

    https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8057/full/

    One of the major problems being that the raw data is not shared.

    A recent article here on MiA discussed the flaws in the Fin11 and Fin20 studies on mortality. Most psychiatrists believed the findings and the articles were subsequently cited over and over again. The raw data and the statistical modeling software, to my knowledge, is not open-source.

    Recently, the modeling software that Imperial College used to advise the UK government on the pandemic has been posted on Github (after being improved by Microsoft). The original is not available yet. The improved version that was made publicly available, if you look at the comments, speak for themselves.

    The original comment you made regarding Trump’s dangerous behavior when speaking about HCQ as a promising treatment, led you to conclude he was directly responsible for 10’s of thousands of deaths. Could you qualify that? What evidence do you base it on?

    I read some articles on it, the problem being that the HCQ arm
    (the ones I read) were more severely ill to begin with before being given HCQ. Also, there was no mention of zinc. I would like to emphasize that you should treat people as early as possible for any disease, that’s common sense.

  • The key word is “eugenics”. It’s primarily a philosophical (or political) ideology dating back to at least Plato’s Republic. The chemical imbalance theory, and all the other theories that come out of “psychiatry science”, are, in their view, “noble lies”. That’s why the “left” pretend to be impressed by “psychiatric science”. It’s sort of the “soft” option. The end result is the same. Straight out euthanizing the undesirables causes more problems. It’s harder to argue on ethical grounds when it’s done in that way. At least with poison, there are a lot of “scientists” willing to make up things to make it seem “scientific”.

    I think the 80’s, with Thatcher and Reagan, saw the end of the “true left”. That was when I stopped being interested in politics.

  • “Richard Smith was editor of the BMJ and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years.”

    Here’s his conclusion of the peer-review process:

    “So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.”

    Once again, you seem to be showing too much trust in protocol.

  • Yes, I did as you suggested, and did a search on Google Scholar for “covid-19 and Hydroxycholoroquine”. The vast majority are positive and urge further testing. But, I went for the one that seems most important to you (possibly because you dislike Trump, like our dear author):

    http://atomicfifteen.com/~TREATMENT_INEFFECTIVE_HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE.pdf

    As reported, they managed to find 11 patients (already at deaths door, almost all with severe comorbidity) and treated them with HCQ and concluded it doesn’t work.

    The point of HCQ (or any other treatment) is to treat people as EARLY AS POSSIBLE.

    They link to another article from China (of people with mild symptoms) as a way to corroborate their findings:

    http://www.zjujournals.com/med/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-9292.2020.03.03

    1 day till fever subsides, comparable to the control group. Transient diarrhea seemed to be the most severe side-effect.

    As most people don’t progress beyond mild symptoms, I don’t see how this corroborates their findings.

  • We’ll, here’s Dr. James Gilligan explaining why he thinks Trump is dangerous:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uJv22DGefA

    He mentions as the most serious a comment Trump made about his willingness to use nuclear weapons. Gilligan called that insane. He fails to mention Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It would also be strange if a President said publicly he would never contemplate using nukes under any circumstances.

    He also mentions Trump’s incitement to violence. He fails to mention evidence of paid agitators (DNC) at Trump rallies.

    What stood out most, was that Gilligan criticized German psychiatry in the 30’s. The only crime, in Gilligan’s view, was that they were unwilling to speak out against Hitler when he came to power. He fails to mention Aktion T4. It shows the mindset of psychiatry at the time.

    I wouldn’t take anything he says seriously.

  • I don’t have access to her finances, so I really can’t comment on that. I just find it inappropriate to publish a clearly political biased article on a forum like this. Yes, most here would agree psychiatric diagnoses are not scientific. But this is not an appropriate way to argue the point. The ulterior motive is quite clear.

  • I will go a little further. Someone who studies “Africans and American Africans” at Harvard makes my skin crawl.

    Also, the whole article is contradictory. At one point she argues against professionals, then she names someone as an “expert” in dangerous behavior.

    She ends by trying to convince you she is right by saying her grandchildren, who are in grade-school, agree with her.

    Take a look at most things she writes, there are frequent references to things she has published. Go to Youtube and watch the play she made about “they call me crazy”. I can’t watch more than 5 minutes of it. Sorry.

    I’m appalled. Aren’t you?

  • You are too trusting of protocol. That’s the problem with medicine and psychiatry. It’s a long debate. You really need to investigate for yourself, there is enough information on the internet, but you need to have a critical mind.

    Chloroquine and the Hydroxychloroquine derivative have been around for a long time. There is a danger, but it’s for people who have what’s called favism. In the african population it’s quite high, around 20%. But you can easily test for it.

    And it’s not even hydroxychloroquine that’s needed, you can use quercetine. It increases the level of zinc in the cells which inhibits the replication of viruses.

    If your interested, read this:

    https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf

    If you read it carefully, putting people on respirators is probably the worst thing you can do. With almost 100% fatality. It’s the immune system response that kills, not the virus.

    There is a lot of disinformation going around.

    You can also read this:

    https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

    Just yesterday, I heard in the news that there was a spike in Corona infections in Russia. They fail to mention it’s because they were testing many more people. Do you see how the media tries to manipulate?

    The media is not what it used to be. They are bought and payed for to spread propaganda. There is no critical analysis, just “this is how you need to think”.

    And it’s not Trump that’s the mastermind behind everything, he is advised by Fauci, who has been in many administrations.

  • I would submit this as an example:

    “Trump may be suffering from both lifelong cognitive impairment (one of his professors from Wharton called him the dumbest student he ever had) and perhaps now, some dementia.”

    Now, if someone has critical, independent thinking capacity, taking the opinion of one professor at Wharton as a valid argument, is not appropriate. It’s quite possible (even probable) the professor just disliked Trump.

    I could argue that Paula Caplan is impressionable (a quality that would not make for a good president). The DSM IV is from 1994. That means that she was close to 50 when it dawned on her that diagnostic categories for mental health are not scientific. She’s a clinical psychologist, which means she must have studied the DSM at some point in her education.

    The article is political and heavily biased, no more, no less.

    Suggesting that psychologists are a crucial component in assessment, is also a way to help bolster her profession above psychiatry.

    You have to at least concede my points.

  • I think, taking a historical perspective, calling someone an evildoer is much less scientific than, say, schizophrenia. There is science behind what’s called schizophrenia (and it’s not what you think), even though it’s been completely turned upside-down and manipulated by psychiatry. The author has an unhealthy obsession with Allen Frances, on display once again with the Huffington Post article she links to (which she authored).

    Why would the author be involved in the DSM IV in the first place, if she is opposed to psychiatric diagnoses? If the author could clarify the seeming dichotomy, I’m all ears.

    The whole article is political, and, the author is aware that psychiatric diagnoses are too vague to oust Trump, it’s just a tactical ploy on her part. Nothing to do with opposing psychiatric diagnoses.

  • Politicians frightened of psychiatrists? Let’s look at the hierarchical structure. Pharma money politics, it’s give and take, most politicians easily swayed by pharma money. Psychiatry? Drug pushing pimp charlatans. Why on earth would politicians be frightened of them? Psychiatrists are at the bottom of the heap. Of-course, they need to be given “respect” for their societal function, but that’s not out of fear.

  • Miss Paula Caplan, please do explain in more detail why you find Donald Trump is an “evildoer”. It’s described as profoundly wicked and immoral. Do give us the details. Sexual misconduct is not enough.

    You say: “Trump himself has acknowledged his own dangerous behavior, including but by no means limited to his sexual assaults.” Do tell, what are the more dangerous things he’s admitted to? What does dangerous behavior mean, anyway? Bungy jumping?

  • “Evildoer”, that seems a very enlightened way to describe someone. Much better than those psychiatric labels, which are, of-course, only opinions.

    It’s also quite appropriate Obama got the Nobel Piece Prize before he did anything. Like turn Libya into a human slave trade paradise. But, of-course, Gadaffi said he was going to kill his own people, door to door, like rats (which was a lie).

  • “But wait, there’s more …”

    You go on to describe Peterson’s unfortunate encounter with clonazepam. I was expecting more evidence and empirical data to support your theory … but it seems you are arguing that his (traumatic) experience could change his view on hitting children.

    The logic here would be to get undisciplined children hooked on benzodiazepines and see if their behavior improves once they are in withdrawal. Technically, it’s not corporal punishment. It’s psychological.

    Having said that, I don’t pay much attention to J. Peterson.