Friday, October 19, 2018

Comments by registeredforthissite

Showing 100 of 444 comments. Show all.

  • The biggest reform that is needed all over the world is the complete legalisation of all drugs (and freedom to choose or not choose) which are currently prescription only. There is this myth that if this is done, society will be in chaos. This is not true. There are plenty of places in my country where medical shops don’t usually ask for a prescription (thank god! But it seems the influence of “developed countries”, BS rules and regulations will slowly change this [and it’s already happening]). But most people don’t irresponsibly put drugs in their body that they don’t need. Why should everyone suffer for some irresponsible addicts who will misuse them or people who aren’t sensible enough to do their own research? If such legalisation will be done, there will be a few individuals who die, which the media and proponents of pharmaceutical control will highlight, whilst neglecting others who are held hostage by their system.

    One can always read about the effects of drugs and ask people who have used them regarding their consequences, positive or negative. One can also consult people who are knowledgeable in chemistry, pharmacology, biology etc. (even medical doctors and pharmacists). These options are always there. But one should not have to be forced to rely on behavioural labelling, controlling and people-trapping organisations, hospitals and people in professional roles.

    There are plenty of people who are either taking psychotropic drugs, or who have to continue taking them till the withdrawal process is complete, which can take months, if not years. Forcing these individuals to rely on the mercy, charity, indoctrination and control of people who were fortunate (or unfortunate, whatever it is) enough to land into the roles of medical doctors is atrocious (hell, sometimes these individuals don’t themselves know the full consequences of what they’re doling out!).

    Freedom will give rise to more information in the hands of people as well. It will also teach individuals to seek proper information.

  • It’s obvious that inattention and the like are real. Some of the behaviours subsumed under the “ADHD” label can very well apply to an individual. You will get some very angry dads, moms and individuals alike if you say “ADHD isn’t real” because they will construe it as you dismissing the problems their kids have, supposedly have, or the problems they have with their kids, or the problems individuals have with themselves.

    If a person wants to take a stimulant as a performance enhancer, that’s up to him, and as long as he isn’t harming anyone (except himself), it is none of our business. Of course, if he is directly or indirectly being forced (even in a subtle manner) to take them, then that brings up a different issue.

    But selling stimulants under the guise of “treatment” for “ADHD” is what is fraught with complications.

    There was some mom here a while ago saying “my child’s ADHD is as much a part of her as *insert some other trait*”. I also remember a guy who used to viciously troll Phil Hickey’s site, hurling abuses, quoting paragraphs from citations, and basically being angry at the fact that “antipsychiatry individuals” are going to prevent people from getting the kind of help that he found enormously useful (which was getting the “ADHD” tag and taking stimulants).

    Let’s not even get into “comorbidities” in behavioural professions. Note the, “be careful with stimulants if they have ‘bipolar disorder'” line in the article. The stimulants themselves can cause mania in some individuals with no prior history of such an occurrence and then it will become a “comorbid” condition (“ADHD” + the newly “uncovered” “bipolar disorder”). This is how it starts. The descent into having multiple labels (“comorbities”) and ending up on multiple drugs and becoming a revolving door “patient”. At least, for some individuals.

  • Let me define Ethics Deficit Disorder:

    Ethics Deficit Disorder is characterised by:

    1.) Constantly seeks to label people with DSM labels.
    2.) Sees no ethical implications of behavioural labelling.
    3.) Enjoys and feels comfortable in the power role
    4.) Is indifferent to the consequences of said practices

    There, you now have a new disorder which also has a neurological basis.

    Psychiatry even delves into the realm of people with “character defects” with its “personality disorders”. Things like being a narcissist or having “black and white thinking”.

    They’ve even proposed “Internet Gaming Disorder” for the DSM-5!

    “Symptoms” include:

    1.) Overwhelming preoccupation with online-activities to an extent, that leads to impairment or distress

    2.) Inability to limit time spent on the Internet

    3.) Loss of other interests

    4.) The need to spend increasing time on the Internet

    5.) Unsuccessful attempt to quit Internet-use

    6.) Use of the Internet to improve or escape aversive conditions, for example stress, Unfavorable duties, dysphoric mood

    7.) Withdrawal symptoms when the Internet is no longer available.

    There’s a whole page on it which includes sections like “Introduction, Mechanism of Internet Gaming and Addiction, Onset, Comorbidities, and then treatment (which includes recommendations of drugs)”! It reads like so many of the other journal papers of psychiatry with its talks of “comorbidities” and therapies.

    There’s also a Wikipedia page

    If this is not the medicalisation of everyday life that Szasz warned us about, I don’t know what is.

    Also, this constant nonsense about “Oh, it’s from the 1960s-1970s” is rubbish. So what? Newton’s laws of motion are from the 1600s! So, does that mean they do not have a great deal of validity today? They may not apply to certain situations but are still quite useful in everyday life.

    Besides, Szasz died in 2012, and continued to publish till almost the year of his death. It’s not like he wasn’t aware of people like Shorter (and there are so many “Shorters” out there) and their writings.

  • “Thomas Szasz’s essay misses several key points about the undoubted changes that psychiatry has undergone since he wrote his original screed against the discipline in 1961. Szasz fails to recognise that the discipline today acknowledges a neurological basis for much psychiatric illness. Thus, his fulminations against psychiatry for treating ‘mental illness’ is off-base. Szasz’s original diatribe was heavily against psychoanalysis. Yet today Freud’s doctrines can scarcely be said to play even a marginal role in psychiatry, and it is absurd to keep levelling the same old charges of 50 years ago. One has the feeling of looking at one of the last veterans of the Esperanto movement in confronting Szasz: lunacy at the time, bizarrely outdated today.”
    –Edward Shorter in 2011, he is a professor at U of Toronto, respected historian of medicine and author of a number of books.

    This used to be my mode of thinking as well. “Oh look at the brain scans, neurotransmitters etc.”.

    Rather than quoting Shorter and his ilk, you’d do well to actually read the works of the man yourself and then form an opinion.

    Proponents of psychiatry like to keep citing the same old “neurological basis” crap and they keep falsely ascribing the notion of “mind-brain duality” to Szasz, which wasn’t something he promoted at all.

    There is no behaviour without a brain, and we all know that. So what? What behaviour in life does not have a neurological basis? The fact that you read and quoted Shorter’s screed has a neurological basis in both your brain and Shorter’s brain.

  • Mauro Ranallo is a combat sports commentator. His documentary called “bipolar rock n roller” is coming out soon in which he loudly proclaims “mental illness may be a life sentence for many of us but it should not be a death sentence”. Yet another documentary that aims to “educate people” on “bipolar disorder”. Documentaries of this type should not be titled “bipolar rock n roller” and should instead be titled “My Own Psychological Problems and Suffering by Mauro Ranallo” .

    Some psychiatrist in the documentary proclaims, “‘bipolar disorder’ mainly describes two things: people with depressive and manic episodes”.

    People won’t hear in these documentaries how people end up experiencing manic episodes due to the very drugs they’re given to help with anxiety or depression. These documentaries also serve to drag the problems of people like Mr. Ranallo onto everyone else labelled with those same truth-obfuscating labels.

    While I won’t trivialise this man’s suffering, you can’t help but not notice the theatrics and exaggerated facial expressions. One more self-aggrandizing documentary which is not going to “educate” anyone, but contribute to even more suffering of already suffering people by creating ridiculous stereotypes.

    Mike Tyson and Jean Claude Van Damme were labelled with the same label (whatever “bipolar disorder” was in the context of their life). How many famous people have we not seen labelled with that? Thank god they don’t each make a “documentary” regarding it because the rest of the not-so-famous population would be totally butchered!

    People like Mr. Ranallo have the right to make these documentaries. And we, to talk about their harm.

  • @Mischa:

    You sound like a rugged individual. It also sounds to me that you had a life where, despite the problems you have faced, people around you have treated psychiatry as merely a thing which is to get you back on track. You did not have psychiatry used to paint you as a “madman” or to gaslight you, and actually end up make you behave in a way where you seem disturbed. You did not have traumatic occurrences and human-on-human abuse in your life be inadvertently dismissed as illnesses.

    Thank you for your appreciation of my supposedly “brilliant short-note”. Any appreciation of me makes me chuckle and also feel sick at the same time, because at this very moment, the very person I was born to is trying to get to prove that I am insane.

    I am not a “victim” in the sense that I would not senselessly blame individuals for no reason, simply because I can. But I will not simply say that certain wrong things were not done to me, be it advertently or inadvertently. Certainly, simply sitting and doing nothing about it is not the way, but every now and then, I still have moments of weakness. I too am responsible for my own physical and mental health. But that responsibility also entails dealing with people who are harmful to me, whether it is intentionally or unintentionally. Simply accepting everything that you are dealt out because you want to be a rugged individual is being a fool.

    I accept whatever limitations I may have. I do not have the IQ of Einstein. I suffer from anxiety every now and then. But I do not accept being labelled with behavioural labels or wish to rely on the mercy and charity of “mental health professionals” or anyone else for my own well-being, howsoever I choose to achieve it.

  • Not really. There are many reasons why many people have not heard of Szasz, or have simply dismissed him without reading his work. One is, that he went and collaborated with the Scientologists. He did so because in his own words:

    “Well I got affiliated with an organisation long after I was established as a critic of psychiatry, called Citizens Commission for Human Rights, because they were then the only organisation and they still are the only organisation who had money and had some access to lawyers and were active in trying to free mental patients who were incarcerated in mental hospitals with whom there was nothing wrong, who had committed no crimes, who wanted to get out of the hospital. And that to me was a very worthwhile cause; it’s still a very worthwhile cause. I no more believe in their religion or their beliefs than I believe in the beliefs of any other religion. I am an atheist, I don’t believe in Christianity, in Judaism, in Islam, in Buddhism and I don’t believe in Scientology. I have nothing to do with Scientology.”

    In retrospect, this was a move that was problematic. Once psychiatry got hold of Scientology’s admonition of psychiatry, it has historically been attempted to link criticism of psychiatry (including Szasz) to Scientology. The over-the-top videos he made with CCHR did nothing to help his cause either.

    Unfortunately, most of his work which is in his books gets overshadowed by the theatrics, the videos of CCHR, apart from several other facets of the proponents of psychiatry. I don’t really care for Dr. Kelmenson’s interpretation of his work either. The source material is always there for people to read themselves. Now, enough of Szasz. I do not worship him either, except to realise the contributions of his work.

  • @Mischa:

    Every now and then we do get people here who talk about how they have benefitted from psychiatry and they feel enraged at the writers and commenters here which is fine and understandable. It is great to know that you found a method that worked for you, be it psychiatry or anything else.

    Quite often, I don’t really bother about the content of some of the articles here (and yes, this particular article has a bit of word play in it), but I do like engaging in discussions with the commenters.

    I’d like to bring up some points. Firstly, “bipolar disorder”, “agoraphobia”, “schizophrenia” aren’t family histories. They are behavioural labels. You’re doing a disservice to yourself and your family members by replacing the occurrences of their life and the reasons for those occurrences and robbing away the truths of their life by saying that those behavioural labels are their/your “family histories”. I don’t deny that they/you have suffered nor the reality of their experiences nor of yours.

    Quite often, when people talk about Szasz and talk about the “myth of mental illness”, they don’t even understand what Szasz was trying to say. Szasz was neither against voluntary “psychiatry/psychology” (or “confidential sessions of listening and talking” as he called them) nor of people’s wish to take meds/drugs (he wrote a whole book on “Our Right To Drugs”), so I don’t see what the problem is (at least on that front). Szasz tried to explain that many of the phenomena labelled as “mental illness” are an attempt to confront and to tackle the problem of how to live, and to identify such phenomena as a disease or illness is to hide the very problems in living that people face. He also talked about the metaphorical nature of that term. Thomas Szasz himself was a practicing “psychotherapist” and some of his clients were psychiatrists and psychologists themselves!

    In Szasz’s time, Karl Menninger was a psychiatrist, who held beliefs much like some of the ones today.

    Towards the end of his life, he wrote to Szasz on October 6, 1988 (I am posting his letter is in italics)

    Dear Dr. Szasz:

    I am holding your new book, INSANITY: THE IDEA AND ITS CONSEQUENCES, in my hands. I read part of it yesterday and I have also read reviews of it. I think I know what it says but I did enjoy hearing it said again. I think I understand better what has disturbed you these years and, in fact, -it disturbs me, too, now. We don’t like the situation that prevails whereby a fellow human being is put aside, outcast as it were, ignored, labeled and said to be “sick in his mind.” If he can pay for care and treatment, we will call him a patient and record a “diagnosis” (given to his relatives for a fee). He is listened to and then advised to try to relax, consider his past sins to be forgiven, renounce his visions or voices or fits, quit striking his neighbor’s windows with his cane, or striking his neighbor’s windows with his cane, or otherwise making himself conspicuous by eccentric behavior. He tries.

    For this service we charge, now. Doctors were once satisfied with a gift, or token, or sometimes just an earnest verbal expression of gratitude. Even if the treatment given was not immediately curative, the doctor had done the sagacious and difficult task of having approached the crazy subject and listened to him and given the condition a NAME, and a prognosis. (In fact, the latter was what he was a specialist in; treatment was really secondary.) You and I remember that there didn’t used to be any treatments, just care and prognosis, “fatal,” “nonfatal,” “serious” “commitable,” “nonpsychotic.” Gradually empirical and chemical agents were discovered which seemed to alter something in the organism which was reflected in the customer’s changed behavior. We accumulated a few methods that seemed to relieve the suffering of these customers, our “patients.” We used prolonged baths, cold sheet packs, diathermy, electric shock, and there were all those other treatments of whipping, strapping down, giving cold douches and sprays. King George III of England was slapped and punched by the fists of one of his “nurses” who later bragged that he even knocked his patient, the King, to the floor “as flat as a flounder.” And the King ultimately recovered but those treatments weren’t outlawed. Added to the beatings and chaining and the baths and massages came treatments that were even more ferocious: gouging out parts of the brain, producing convulsions with electric shocks, starving, surgical removal of teeth, tonsils, uteri, etc.

    Next someone discovered some chemicals that had peculiar effects on people who swallowed them. Alcohol was already well known and opium and morphine and heroin and cocaine; but Luminal was introduced and “Seconal” and similar pharmaceutical concoctions given names ending in “al” or “ol” (as in Demerol). These were regarded as therapeutically useful because they did dispel some of the symptoms and they made the patient feel better (briefly). No baths, no brain operations, no chemicals, no electric shocks, no brain stabbing.

    Long ago I noticed that some of our very sick patients surprised us by getting well even without much of our “treatment.” We were very glad, of course, but frequently some of them did something else even more surprising. They kept improving, got “weller than well” as I put it, better behaved and more comfortable or reasonable than they were before they got into that “sick” condition. We didn’t know why. But it seemed to some of us that kind of the “sickness” that we had seen was a kind of conversion experience, like trimming a fruit tree, for example.

    Well, enough of those recollections of early days. You tried to get us to talk together and take another look at our material. I am sorry you and I have gotten apparently so far apart all these years. We might have enjoyed discussing our observations together. You tried; you wanted me to come there, I remember. I demurred. Mea culpa.

    Best wishes.

    Sincerely,
    Karl Menninger, M.D.

    Contrary to your assertions, if you actually read his work, you would understand that he actually knew a great deal about suffering. Yes, one feels ambivalent regarding some of his works, but that does not remove the great deal he contributed.

    Second, I have known seen several people who suffer a lot due to depression, anxiety and a lot of other problems like being deluded or whatever else it is. And people have various ways of coping with them. It may be physical exercise, social interactions, taking pills or what have you. You don’t even know what it means to denying “the myths of mental illness”. It is not denying people’s problems in living, thinking or feeling, no matter what you have been fed by psychiatrists or reading random nonsense about big bad “antipsychiatry” online.

    How does this remove the dangers of psychiatry? The truth-obfuscating labelling, the disease-mongering or whatever else. For the most part, shrinks aren’t intentionally bad individuals looking to torture people. But their intentions don’t remove the other harmful modalities of their professions.

    What if you had drugs forced onto you which were ruining your body but you still had to take them? What if you had drugs forced onto you for problems that are not even solvable by drugging up people? Or, what if behavioural labels robbed away the truths of your life, were used to gaslight or harass you, used against you in a court of law? What when people are labelled with labels or do crazy things due to adverse reactions to prescription drugs? The odds would be stacked against you because it is you who would be seen through the prism of sanism and not others.

    Just as I or anyone else should not deny your very real suffering and the positive contributions that the behavioural professions made to your life, you cannot deny that of others and the negative consequences the behavioural professions have made on their life either.

    Good day to you.

  • @AuntiePsychiatry:

    I was one of those moronic millennials once!

    People write on twitter #ADHD, #OCD #EndStigma, or go onto Facebook and write stuff like: “Going through bipolar hell today”.

    I used to write such ridiculous shit too. At the end of my teens, I once became so outlandishly manic DUE to the SSRI fluvoxamine (“manic” is just another word for the fact that I was as high as a kite on and due to that particular prescription drug), coupled with an insane amount of indoctrination (some of which was ‘self-inflicted’ but also associated with the internet culture of the behavioural professions, and also the thirst to know more about science, evolution, the brain etc.), that I ended up writing all kinds of self pathologising, psychotic junk online about my life (as I thought of it during that period of my life and in that “out-of-my-mind” moment) in the public realm and publishing it online. It’s actually being used against me now to “prove” that I’m insane by a certain criminal minded person (who himself is a pathological liar, and a manipulator who should be locked up).

    I have to laugh at the absolute ignorance of the practices of these youngsters. They are obfuscating away the truths of their own lives and actually bringing even more stigma and falsities towards themselves. It’s paradoxical.

    Unfortunately, many of these individuals are too young to understand the depths of the behavioural professions and everything they bring with them, whether it is within those professions themselves, societally, and even the impact of the modalities of the professions and the culture they have created on the very minds of the individuals they try to help.

    In my childhood, I was one of those “scientifically minded” nerd like kids. I always had reverence for the “wonder of science”, used to read Hawking and Dawkins etc.

    If you notice, many of the young kids today are taken in by the “science-based movements” which encourage “critical thinking skills” and which also stand against big bad “antipsychiatry”. Whilst there is certainly a role in place for these movements, and there some good that these movements do (in terms of damning religious superstition etc.), they also (perhaps inadvertently) promote this reverence not just for the truth, but also for positive connotations of the word “science” and also towards men and women who play the role of scientists and medical doctors in society. In some ways, the “man of science” has taken up the mantle of God in society.

    The pro-psychiatry camp is quick quote citations of journal papers, brain scans, stats, terminology, similarities with other medical specialities and has also aligned themselves with “skeptics movements” etc.

    These kids won’t realise the damage of these labels, the medicalisation and pathologisation of their own behaviour until it is too late. Not engaging in the “anti-stigma” kind of behaviour is directly correlated with not wanting to be perceived as a crank in “rational society”. What can you do?

    People like us will not have the same kind of credibility as doctors, neuroscientists etc. That being said, I also think people in the antipsychiatry camp argue in a way that it makes them look like cranks as well.

    The only way some people will have certain realisations is after the damage is already done.

    Earlier in the morning, I was going through the YouTube video of Bonnie Burstow’s Antipsychiatry Scholarship.

    The comments section was littered with the same old comments from the antipsychiatry camp about “psychiatry is a pseudoscience”, “big bad Big Pharma”, “no biological tests in psychiatry” etc.

    It was also littered by the pro-psychiatry camp with the same old “Don’t you believe in MRIs, fMRIs?”, “D2 receptors in ‘schizophrenics'”, “what do you call when a ‘schizophrenic’ man has acute psychosis”, “why not have anti-cardiology if you have antipsychiatry?”, “we need to bring in patients who’ve benefitted from psychiatry to counter this nonsense”.

    I know all of the stuff that both pro-psychiatry and anti-psychiatry camps argue about. Seen it around too often.

    In this whole thing, the only people that end up getting screwed over are some of the individuals who have ended up in the behavioural professions. There’s hardly anyone to help them then.

  • I agree with several of your points. I have also read your website and I like your take on things. However, a couple of things to talk about:

    1.) Why don’t people who are licensed as clinical psychologists simply publish all of their interventions in the form of easy to read and understand PDF documents and upload it online? This is horrible for their practice as a business because it takes money out of their pockets, but would be very helpful for a lot of people. This has already been done when it comes to education (mathematics, physics etc.) via mediums like Khan Academy and all the other YouTube (or otherwise) content creators. People have also published free e-books for learning programming for instance.

    2.) In cases where people actually need someone for them to be there, you could take up the real life role in that case.

    3.) The danger of therapy is that it attempts to find the problem within the individual. What if a person is suffering from an abusive individual (even when they are going through it currently)? It is impossible to do anything about it once you have entered the behavioural system and you have ready-made behavioural labels (hell, even the fact that a person is in “therapy”) for the perpetrator to exploit, gaslight you, and use against you in courts, through the police etc.

  • The other thing is, if people want to engage in “psychotherapy”, or “confidential sessions of listening and talking” as Szasz called them, they can do so in the form of one human being communicating with another to find out a solution to some problem, just as individuals do with each other in ordinary society. Not in the roles of:

    1.) A labelling, record-keeping, state backed individual.

    versus

    2.) A person in the patient role.

    Such a system (the one that exists right now) only creates 2 more problems in the place of 1 problem it solves.

    Doing the version of “psychotherapy” which is a “confidential session of listening and talking” would imply the following:

    1.) All people licensed to practice as mental health workers must disband from institutions which engage in institutionalisation, labelling and coercive drugging, and move into private practice as individuals.

    2.) To maintain absolute confidentiality, any records must be destroyed on the request of the person in the patient role.

    3.) To avoid unwarranted stigma, the individuals must be willing to go from home to home, and not in a building where all their clients are in one waiting room.

    How many practitioners would be willing to take this risk? Not many. There might not even be a reward for this kind of practice (for the people playing the role of “therapist”) at the end of the day. Would the law in the country of practice allow for such practices? What if the person in the role of therapist ends up in prison or has a lawsuit filed against him/her?

    The other things are:

    1.) It is a well known fact that several individuals who end up in any of the forms of “therapy” are people who already dealing with other abusive individuals in their life. What can people in the role of therapists do about the perpetrators, without which, there is no point of any kind of “therapy” in the first place?

    2.) There are also people who come from very good families, with no obnoxious individuals in their lives, but rather some problem in living, thinking or feeling that is causing them distress. This is the class of individuals who can benefit the most from such a practice.

  • You tell us. Only you can know that. How can a person playing the role of a shrink give you the answers to that question? Many of the horrible things we go through in life are not choices. You’ve already called your unhappiness exactly that. “Unhappiness”. Do you think getting about 5 labels for that occurrence changes or explains what you are experiencing? Perhaps calling it “Panic Disorder”, “Generalised Anxiety Disorder”, “Social Anxiety Disorder” etc. makes you feel like you have more of an explanation? It isn’t. They’re just tautological re-wordings of what you’re going through, a kind of sleight of hand; a magician’s trick.

    All your shrink will do is listening and talking and giving you drugs. So take your “Celexa” and be happy about it. Celexa to you, alcohol to someone else. So what?

    Let us be honest. The ONLY reason you even see a person playing the role of shrink is because you have a paid shoulder to cry on, and a person who is part of a system that has a monopolistic control of pharmaceuticals. In other words, you are on their mercy and charity. That is all. If someone gave you 10 million$ and a life time supply of any drug you wanted, you wouldn’t even be on here.

    Every post you write practically goes like this:

    “we don’t know enough….bio/psych/social is the way to go…..”

    There is no physical body without genes, no behaviour without a brain, and no life without an environment to exist in. This is a trivial fact of existence, even if it is presented in behavioural literature like it is some exquisite finding of “science”.

    What is the practical relevance of it? Is a person playing the role of a shrink going to modify your genes? Is he going to change who you were born to or where you were born? Is he going to give you a million bucks?

    Once again. Listening and talking + labelling + drugs = practical practice in the behavioural professions.

    The person playing the role of shrink will move up the research ladder, get his next honorary doctorate, publish journal papers with his name on it (maybe even make a case study of you), perhaps be a “cool shrink” or a “caring guardian” talking about how people are being over-medicated or even become a writer on MIA, join some collaboration like the “Cochrane Collaboration” talking about “how drug companies are hiding the clinical trial data”, publish a book, give a TED talk; and basically, improve his legacy at the cost of you becoming a moron in between.

    He is the observer. You are the lab-rat. You are no different than the mice who are being tested on in order to find a cure for cancer or whatever else it is (but by no means is this the explicit intention of shrinks. Their intentions are as “good” or “bad” as the people working in the departmental store you buy your groceries from). The only thing is, the mice get nothing out of it, but people sometimes, get SOME things that they want, but also lose something more. The person who REALLY gets something out of it, is the person playing the role of the professional. Not you. Not me.

    littleturtle, just like you, I have come across people in the behavioural professions who were very “nice” to me. Polite, well-behaved etc. It is only after sometime I saw what a fool I was and what it took away from my life. And not because any of the individuals I came across in these professions in my life were “bad” people. It’s the nature of the beast. The game of life. We are all selfish creatures, striving to maximise and realise our potentials.

  • “Psychotherapy” is a ridiculous gimmick and a system of pseudo-help that maintains the notion that they can solve human suffering, even the kind which either has no solutions, or has solutions which depend on actually practically doing something for the individual without trapping him in a system of endless listening and talking in a closed room.

    As far as information about behaviour and practices like mindfulness or whatever other scientistic therapy names they have (“CBT” or what have you), they can simply do their research and put it out in the public domain so that individuals can use the information for themselves.

  • While I agree with the egregious consequences of truth-obfuscating labelling, and the myths of mental illness, there does exist suffering. And sometimes people want to do something about it. Whether it is social interactions, learning skills of various kinds, moving up social classes, making money, VOLUNTARY drug use or otherwise. But I agree that the behavioural professions, a.k.a psychiatry and psychology, are terrible agents to even try to alleviate any kind of suffering. Their role in public life must be severely curtailed. Their monopolistic control of pharmaceuticals, either to force them onto people, or to keep them away from them, or even to give them access based on ridiculous practices, must be curtailed as well.

    Unfortunately, in order to truly help an individual, it takes a lot of sacrifice and even personal risks, on the part of everyday individuals, and even on the part of men and women who are playing the medical role. Risks they would not take out of fear of legal sanctions or even ending up in prison. I don’t believe in reforming the “system”. Every system fails someone. I do believe in the power of an individual to help himself/herself in ways that allow him/her to realise his/her peak potential. It is this ability to help oneself in a manner of their own choosing that the behavioural professions and their allies rob away from individuals.

  • I agree on a certain level. The only “manias” I had in the past were drug (SSRI) induced. And it was nothing more or less than a drug high. It’s literally like taking a very strong stimulant. I suppose it’s similar to what snorting coke would be like (which I’ve never done, BTW).

    I suppose a large number of manic episodes that people experience in our day and age are drug induced. Either due to legal, illegal, or legal-by-prescription drugs. While I know that “spontaneous” i.e. non-drug caused mania exists, I have never yet personally met someone who experiences it.

    I met a man once who would have “spontaneous” manic episodes every now and then, but that’s because he says he had a brain injury when he was a kid. I have no idea about the legitimacy of his words regarding the matter though.

  • The following was a comment by a certain Brennan on your Now Toronto article.

    Brennan comments: “Without SSRIs and other modern mental health medications, which are methodically prescribed to me by my psychiatrist, I would be a complete burden on society. No one (medical professional or layman) has even questioned my need for pharmaceuticals for my physical ailment but, very few understand the importance of my need for my other medication.

    Purposely using atrocious abuses and ignorance of the medical system as meaningful examples from decades ago to justify her current stance is pretty low (and I do mean building a wall low). Just because she shamelessly cites examples of a system that targeted and forced treatment upon on “gays” and “women” is reason enough to kick the soap box from under her. Personally, I do not see how her stance on mental health is the least bit progressive. She is, at best akin to Ann Coulter participating in an open panel discussion on Bill Maher’s show. If she can teach antipsychiartry, why can’t Eugenics be brought back; calipers and all.”

    One of the things some of these people are afraid of is that you’ll take away their pills from them. Funny. Considering that even in the hypothetical scenario where professional psychiatry is gone, drugs could still be bought directly from a drug store (except that the law currently makes it impossible in most countries) for those who wish to use them. It’s very easy to enter into psychiatry to take drugs. It’s a lot harder to be rid of psychiatry so as to not be forced to.

    There was also a lot of the standard psychiatric junk about brain imaging and the false association with Scientology.

    Out of curiosity, Ms. Burstow; what kind of courses are you looking to teach in these antipsychiatry programs?

    Also, congrats.

  • Dr. Neil,

    I’m sure you’re not a bad person who wants people to be on his mercy and charity. But the fact is, you are the gatekeeper to the drug-store. You are also the enforcer of paternalisation, however subtle or well intended.

    You are a labelling, record-keeping, behavioural observation noting, file transferring creator of revolving door “patients”.

    And people like you, irrespective of their good intentions, are still a massive roadblock to the well-being of individuals.

    It isn’t merely the drugs which make people resist your profession. Drugs don’t take themselves. It’s the fact that you exist with all the other facets of your profession.

    You write: “Any patient with depression, say, is free to read up on information and any reasonable psychiatrist or family doctor will respect choice, within limits”.

    Your “limits” and your code of conduct and “professional practices” are dangerous to me.

    “Pharma regulation must include professional prescribers”

    No. That depends on who is making the rules and for whom. If you ask me, the professional role must become more lax. If you want to act as consultants between voluntary individuals, like a business contract, then fine.

    You cite people who are dead due to drugs. On the other hand, there are people who are alive but whose existence is just that; merely existing (or even utter misery), thanks to the mental health profession in between.

  • Have you considered the notion that the hatred of prescription drugs comes, not from simply the unintended negative effects of the drugs themselves, but rather from having individuals who play the role of medical mental health professionals, existing as arbitrators between what is ideally a relationship between the individual and the drug store?

    People in distress may want to try out drugs. When they want to, they might want to consult someone knowledgeable about what the drugs do, and also talk to people who have used them. When they want to taper off, they might want to do that with someone’s help as well. Of course, the best help, if possible, is self help. But the consulting is ideally between a few knowledgeable humans who are looking to help one another. Not between a professional backed by the state and a person in the patient role.

    However, the law mandates that the only way a person can get prescription-only drugs, is by just that. The prescription of a mental health professional. A person who will label, do record-keeping, can infantilise and coerce individuals, force drugs onto them, and with the best of intentions turn them into a revolving door patient etc. Your very institutions and playing the patient role in those places is nauseating.

    Granted that most of you are not evil individuals who are picking random people off the streets and looking to torture them with drugs. I am not trying to push the “mental health professionals are the children of satan” viewpoint. But that does not remove the associated dangers of interacting with people such as yourself.

    Get out of the way and stay out is what I’m trying to say. But that is not possible. People are forced to rely on your unwanted, and frankly intrusive, mercy and charity.

  • Well written knaps. Mr. Moritz, like many people in his profession, seems to be a decent person. However, while it is important to have people with good intentions work with you, those good intentions don’t remove the associated dangers.

    Going through bits of this article reminds me of the dangers of scientistic behavioural jargon, and why getting trapped in a system of well-intentioned human beings who think and operate in these ways, and label people, and the modalities of their own thinking completely removes any normalcy from an individual’s life. While they have their reasons for doing it, the public also has good reasons for wanting to avoid it. This is not just true within the institutions but also among public domains like books, the internet, published literature etc.

    In common society, we talk about love, joy, hope, success, failure, strength, weakness, comfort, adversity etc. We don’t talk about behavioural criteria, cognitive biases, mood congruence and incongruence etc. That very language, whilst being useful in some moments for some people, after a while, becomes toxic, nauseating and prevents people from turning into psychologically healthy adults who are in tandem with ordinary society.

    Mr. Moritz is probably a good human, and I applaud him for posting on here and taking some heat which may make him feel agitated. I do not want to slander him in any way. Many people from the mental health fields feel very victimised by the MIA crowd, as I see posts from them (on various mediums like blogs and comment sections), the contents of which range from absolute anger at the MIA crowd (which includes labelling the commenters here with “personality disorders”) to fear. The kind of stuff presented in the article, while it is obvious Mr. Moritz has exerted a lot of physical and mental work in creating, and it is great that he genuinely wants to help people, is not stuff that is very new to me. I have seen modules of this nature before.

    That being said, I am also terrified of anyone in any country like Mr. Moritz or his colleagues, and they have to live with the fact that there is absolutely nothing they can do, no matter how well-intentioned or noble their cause may be, to make some of us feel comfortable with them, EVER. It isn’t because they are bad or flawed. My experiences are probably nowhere near as bad as some of the posters here, but it has been enough to keep away. It is just the imbalance of power that exists, added with all the other facets of the professions.

    One being the observer, the other being the lab-rat. One being able to label, and the other on the receiving end. One who will form “well-intentioned therapeutic alliances with family members” regarding the “condition of their relative” (which from what I have seen can be a fair bit of “well-intentioned indoctrination”), which is compassionate infantilisation that will impede the person playing the role of patient from ever reaching his fullest potential. Once this happens, the person playing the role of patient can never fully trust his family again either. One who has the backing of the state, the power of the pen, the paper and the syringe, and the other who doesn’t.

    The “I do not like to be spoken to as if the naive lackey of some kind of nazi organization” line made me chuckle. However, visiting the website just shows that this organisation is just like every other well-intentioned organisation of psychiatry out there in every country. There is no initiative to stop labelling individuals. The same truth-obfuscating, scientistic behavioural jargon permeates their modality of help. It is still ripe with “personality disorders” (aka state-sanctioned medicalised defamation irrespective of the behaviour of the labelled). I also expect diagnoses of “bipolar disorder” due to mania caused by prescription drugs like stimulants and antidepressants are also made at his workplace.

    The article mentions that there are people with this thing called “schizophrenia”. I am well aware of the behaviours that are subsumed under the tautological rubric of that label.

    Now, I have met many people labelled with that label. Several of the individuals I met were people who were engineers, business graduates, had Ph.Ds etc. They were smart, rational, funny and on the whole pretty normal. Unless they would have told me about their label, I would never even have known. On, the other hand, there is the other version that most people are familiar with. The person with the dirty matted hair, speaking to things in the air etc.

    More than their problems, I applaud their resiliency in living in society playing the role of a “schizophrenic” with all the stereotypes that come with it. Mr. Moritz mentions that “the disorder is neither demonised or trivialised”. Well. You have demonised these individuals the day you labelled them as “schizophrenics”. Their suffering is enough without mental health professionals butchering them even more by labelling them in such a manner.

    Life is full of contradictions, and we are all hypocrites every now and then. They are not “bad”, and we are not “good”. I suppose if I had the circumstances where I was in a position of medical power and the head of a department of some behavioural field, I would be out there labelling individuals, putting them into categories and doing everything else that these people do. But I am where I am, and they are where they are. Snakes and mongooses. We must be vigilant of the other, and we will fight, because we must, in order to preserve our own well-being.

  • I find concepts like “CBT” for children who are already going through abuse at the hands of another person to be ridiculous. It’s like teaching a child forced into prostitution how to better handle being a child prostitute than to remove him/her from that situation and doing something about the perpetrator.

    Unfortunately for children or youth in such situations, falling into the hands of the mental health professional is just as dangerous, because once the kid is labelled, the perpetrator will use the labels and also the fact that the victim is taking “psychiatric help” as an excuse to gaslight him/her further making the victim’s outwardly behaviour progressively more aberrant and seemingly “sick” which is again used as a point for even more gaslighting.

    This is one area where most of you people fail, and actually become a part of the problem and not a solution. Most mental health professionals are well intentioned and quick to want to help out the person with their whole gamut of psychological therapies or prescription drugs. They just lack insight (much like some of their patients), that they are actually a danger to such clients.

  • Anxiety and obsessional thinking are very real. They can be very distressful as well. But “OCD” is a horribly damaging and truth obfuscating tautology to label individuals with, especially when they are already suffering and trying to understand the nature of their suffering.

    Underneath (sometimes) irrational obsessional thinking (which could superficially be a myriad of things), there is always something like a fear of losing control, or a fear of something bad happening etc., which is the primary schematic beneath such superficial thoughts.

    When those are the fundamental ideas (which even occur in varying degrees in people with no dysfunctional lives), it makes sense to simply say that, in ordinary human language, than to teach people that their “‘OCD’ is causing so-and-so behaviour”, which is the equivalent of HD (Headache Disorder) causing a headache. Yet, this is repeatedly done by mental health professionals (and even their clients), both in real-life and online.

  • Well, as I said, this is a war and some name calling is expected.

    With regards to professionalism, there are both good and bad sides to it. I think qualities like being rude etc. are very human traits to have, and we have all exhibited them in some form or the other, whether it was justified or not.

    When people playing the role of “professionals” behave in a way that is natural, it is actually good if you think of it from the view point of it shattering the mythical aspects of “Mental health workers are experts on people’s minds and lives”. The mythical aspects of that view-point, to me, is far more dangerous than any rudeness I may encounter or shell out. Call me an asshole, I will call you a prick back. Or hell, if I was mistaken, I’ll even apologise.

    Label away the truths of my life under the rubric of medicalised jargon, use it against me, and it’s over.

    When you’re being a professional, you’re being an actor. People can’t be expected to act all day long. There are many places online where people licensed to practice as psychiatrists write about the kind of vitriol they get. At some point, they will want to hit back, which is only human. And go ahead, hit back. No problem. Just leave your medicalised behavioural jargon in the dustbin where it belongs.

  • I have not read the article on which I’m commenting.

    But, I did visit this Dr. Hassman’s blog.

    In it, he calls MIA people “losers” and what not. That’s okay. This is in some sense a battle between groups with different interests, and some name calling is expected. Call a person something, and they will call you something back. ‘Tis life.

    But then, he does something which disgusts me and something which rather shamelessly showcases his profession. He seems to be a master at “personality disorders”. Something, which to me, are the most defamatory of the tools which are in the toolbox of the men and women who are licensed to practice as psychiatrists.

    I do not care what the person has done. Dr. Larry Nassar, an American osteopath, was recently in the news because he molested 200 girls. It was trending on youtube at the time so I watched his trial.

    If a man like Larry Nassar molested 200 girls, then that his what he did, and there are reasons behind it. Relabelling it under the tautological rubric of a “personality disorder” adds no more truth to it.

    In one of his articles, he writes about MIA commenters:
    “Amazing how illustrative the usual primitive and dysfunctional defenses of the personality disordered are well provided: the projections, denials, deflections, minimizations, and frank pathetic rationalizations of child-like mentality are on full display!”

    It is also very illustrative how the minds of (at least some?) medical men and women work.

    If a person is deflecting or whatever else it is, say that. Why then cover it up under the tautological rubric of a “personality disorder”?

    Person: X person is denying, deflecting, projecting etc.

    “Doctor”: Yes, that’s a classic personality disorder.

    Person: But why does he behave that way

    “Dumber” (sounding) Doctor: Well, only personality disordered people do that.

    “Smarter” (sounding) doctor: The etiology of the “condition” varies from person to person. There are biological and environmental risk factors.”

    The reality: The person is behaving in a certain way, and just like I have reasons for my behaviour, he/she has for his, and that’s what it is.

    If I had the power of labelling, I could easily have done this to Hassman. God knows how many people he has labelled with his personality “disorders, clusters, Axis *insert your favourite number here*. All with good therapeutic intentions of course (and I’m not even being sarcastic).

    It is obvious that, at least sometimes, he is using these terms as weapons even though he denies it and writes elsewhere “I have seen therapists use such terms with less than therapeutic intentions”, which is what he is doing even if he denies it. Besides, associating these terms and “therapeutic intentions”, no matter how well intentioned the labeller is, is a folly. The intentions of the labeller or the definitions of such labelling do not matter. You just don’t do it.

    Medicine (I am excluding psychiatry from this) is a complex subject. If a person comes in and says “fever”, it could mean so many things. Every doctor has their own way of working, and on a bad day, even an otherwise excellent doctor can make a mistake. If a doctor (again, I’m excluding psychiatry from this) made an honest mistake, I could understand it, and perhaps I’d even encourage that doctor to better next time (unless he has done something that needs me to get amputated or the like). I cannot show the same leniency towards people who are licensed to practice as psychiatrists.

    People like Hassman frankly terrify me. Knowing that there are people like that out there in the field of psychiatry is all the more reason to stay away from the profession. If I am ever labelled with tripe like “personality disorders”, I will do everything in my power to ruin the medical career of the labeller involved. And if he/she wants to hit back because they believe they are justified in doing it; well fine, then we go to war.

    If a person is behaving in a certain way, say that. Perhaps he will say a few things about you to, and you will have a conversation with each other. If you have state-sanctioned medical power and put a “personality disorder” on the file (irrespective of how the person behaves), the conversation is over.

    In yet another post he writes about MIA people as people who keep writing about “abusive doctors” and that’s “classic Axis 2 stuff”. Most people who practice psychiatry are indeed not abusive and intentionally cruel. But that does not stop them from being dangerous. Hassman is a good example of that. Once again, if a person is behaving in a certain way, say that. By all means say that a person is “deflecting, denying” or whatever else it is. Why relabel it under the rubric of “personality disorders”?

    Further on he goes on to say “characterological problems means Axis 2” and justifies this labelling. No. “Characterological problem” (whatever it may be) is whatever that behaviour is. It does not matter what clinical definitions have been cooked up for these labels. Changing the definitions, or “diagnosing carefully based on clinical definitions and guidelines” does not change the fundamental underlying political nature of these labels.

    The danger is not having a personality type (everyone has a personality type, and our personality changes with our experiences in life). The danger is in allowing a medical man to label it.

    If it is such a trivial fact, and just an “aspect of medicine”, then I would ask all members in departments of psychiatry and psychology to do the following.

    Make personality classifications for each of your colleagues (and they can do it for you). By that, I don’t mean your favourite hobbies or books to read. But put yourselves in Axis’s, clusters etc. and publish the information with your name and photograph on your hospital websites for the public to see.

    There are many psychiatrists who publish on MIA. Sometimes, even we learn a few things from them. There are also people who come in here and write stuff with which we disagree with in varying levels of intensity. I have yet, never seen any mental health worker here, so shamelessly and publicly medicalise and stamp people’s actions. I sincerely hope someone sues the life out of this Hassman person.

    Hassman says antipsychiatry people are rude and they avoid his blog in “fear of exposure”. Or perhaps, maybe they don’t want to engage with him precisely because of his behaviour? And are pro-psychiatry people angels?

    I have seen Phil Hickey’s website be littered with rude and abusive comments, F-bombs and what not. In one of Dr. Hickey’s articles addressed to Hassman, he wrote about some of the comments he got (and still gets) from the pro-psychiatry camp. One of them was about how Phil Hickey should see a psychiatrist (a man of “reason and science” according to the commenter) for his “Narcissistic Personality Disorder”. You can clearly see how these individuals have weaponised these terms, and they are shameless at it. The only thing is their denials, dismissals, deflections etc. cannot be medicalised away by people who are powerless to do that.

    I hope a time will come when courts of law and other powers that be start seeing these terms for what they are. Defamation, libel and slander; and start handing out suspensions for mental health workers who do this stuff, especially if a person has explicitly asked to not be labelled.

    That being said, if a person uses these terms against you, you should do what you can to use it back against them.

  • @Rachel777:

    Is your other pseudonym here FeelinDiscouraged?

    I was labelled “bipolar” when I was 16 due to mania caused by sertraline prescribed for anxiety. That label is a lie. Labelling people with defamatory labels and robbing away their truths for drug induced occurrences is something psychiatry commonly does. It isn’t so much the prescription of the sertraline I was worried about. It’s everything else that came with and after it.

    I have been harassed, abused and gaslighted for years because of the labels I have (I’m not talking about psychiatry) which are a lie. I cannot even get justice from said abuser because I’m labelled with DSM garbage.

    It’s not so much that I have not had anxieties or anything. But that’s the thing. You enter, or you are made to enter, into these systems with one problem. When you come out, you have two more.

    I am still living with so much dejection and pain everyday. Not many people can understand this, except some folks on here. Despite having people all around me, and talking to so many people, it’s like living a bit of a lie.

  • @Ms. Moncrieff:

    You have given a few examples: two of them being a man obsessed with religion and a woman whose delusional thinking starts with writing poetry. In the hands of psychiatry, both these individuals will be labelled with some or the other DSM rubbish. Schizophrenia or what have you. Don’t you think the best way to provide any form of help to them would be to not rob away their truths by labelling them with a lie (irrespective of what the clinical definitions of the DSM labels applied to them are; in the future if being a psychiatrist was a social sin defined as Ethics Deficit Disorder, it would have clinical definitions and a barrage of journal papers and brain scans to go along with it too) right at the start and see their problems for what they are?

    The person and his/her family members will see the label and have a false sense of having some sort of an explanation when it isn’t. Family members with bad intentions will misuse the term in a false manner.

    Also, there is no context with regards to why those people got obsessed with religion or poetry. What were the preceding events? What else are they surrounded by? Why the obsession with religion and not with the weather for instance.

    I agree with you that drugs used for a short period of time may have some positive benefit assuming they don’t do other horrible things. But what after that? What about the consequences of the labelling? The consequences of having become a part of the psychiatric system and it becoming a permanent fixture in one’s medical records? The indoctrination of families that comes with it?

    What if the person wants to take prescription-only drugs without psychiatry as a middleman (because there are a lot of things that come with simply getting a prescription)? What when they want to taper off of them?

    See. Ordinarily, a person in a phase of distress will have some issue for which, if they are in the right mind to see it, they will seek some form of assistance. Depending on the problem, it may be going to the police, going to a drug store to buy pills, talking to a friend etc. If they are not thinking rationally, for the time being, there will be an intervening force in the form of some or the other people related to the person.

    How does one eliminate psychiatry as an interfering agent between whatever the person wants as help?

  • No self-respecting person should be part of an institute or take up a position based on inability, but rather because they are capable and more capable than others who are vying for the same position.

    “Accomodate people with ‘mental illness’ ” is just another way to spread falsities about that term and create helplessness even amongst capable people based on myths.

  • Legalise all drugs which are currently prescription-only in select places and remove doctors and psychiatry as middle-men, except only as voluntary consultants (if the person wants to use them at all) to give information in exchange for payment (and not as labellers and behavioural-record maintainers).

    The community can learn for itself how to use these drugs or taper off of them.

    If someone partakes in an “epidemic” type of misuse, it’s on their own heads. There is no need for “well-intentioned policy makers” to butt in.

  • Exactly. The notion that these labels “aid in treatment” is a continuous and consistent myth and a poor excuse to keep labelling individuals and rob away their truth (of course, this is not the intention of the labellers).

    Steve, all behaviours have causal factors. But they vary from individual to individual. The notion that these labels do any such thing as to remotely go into the “cause” in specific individuals who are everyday people getting involved in psychiatry (and not some research subjects) is utterly misleading.

    I think we have all also seen how these labels actually result in medical mistakes rather than any sort of healing.

  • Is this what “Dr” (or whatever she is) Anika Mandla et al have been wasting their time doing? It’s very nice that they spent the time doing this. But they would do a lot better debunking these ridiculous terms like “bipolar disorder”.

    Bloggers described the idea of being “wired differently” and some used terms such as “bipolar brain.”

    Yes, I have seen many people do ridiculous things like this and it is infuriating to see it. People like these researchers would be a lot better of questioning people about the validity of such terms with respect to their lives.

    I have met people with traumatic brain injury who keep experiencing mania every now and then. Then there are other people who experience “spontaneous” manias. Yet again, there are other people whose “bipolar” diagnosis comes solely due to drug induced mania (drugs prescribed by psychiatrists). These are all DIFFERENT circumstances and do not constitute the same thing and SHOULD NOT be labelled the same way (that’s keeping aside the entire argument against labels), which they usually are.

    People who talk about the “bipolar brain” should rather talk about their own goddamn brains and shut up about everyone else (which they are indirectly doing).

  • I will say a simple thing. People have used drugs since time immemorial to feel a certain way. There are drugs we deem illegal (cocaine, heroin etc.), drugs which are legal (alcohol,nicotine, marijuana [in some places]), and drugs which are legal only by prescription (many psychiatric drugs).

    The fundamental purpose of all drugs (whether they are legal, illegal, or legal-by-prescription) is the same. People ingest them to feel a certain way, or they are forced onto people with the hope that they behave in a certain way. This fundamental principle is irrespective of the nature of drugs or their effects.

    SSRIs for instance, in a subset of people who take them, produce one particular effect, a stimulant effect, a feeling of energy and vitality, with other effects like tremors, stomach upsets, sexual dysfunction etc. But, I also know other people, who take the same drugs, and feel no difference or those who actually feel even more depressed.

    Other drugs produced a “stoned” like effect; sleepiness, vivid dreams, hunger etc.

    It is silly to say that any of these drugs “treat” X or Y “disorder” except in the sense that they produce a unique mild altering effect or a “high”. That’s all there is to it.

    This is a crucial point that people who end up on these drugs must know.

  • The things that come up when you google search “ADHD *and whatever else* ” make me vomit.

    It is one thing to say that a person is not attentive to certain things. Hell, even if people want to take methylphenidate if it’s helping them concentrate better, let them do it. Just don’t say “ADHD” is causing those behaviours.

    These statements about “brain differences and genetic findings” that get so much attention in the media are disastrous. Kids from abusive homes will display many of the behavioural features associated with terms like “ADHD” , and then be told that they are genetically defective.

  • Disability creation and denial of disability creation is the dark side of propsychiatry.

    It’s good to know that madincanada’s child got the kind of help that benefited him. Others are not so lucky. “Help” butchers them. And not everyone has hallucinations and delusions. And some people do have those things caused by psychiatric drugs, with no incidence of such behaviours prior to psychiatric drug use.

    But, I guess this is well known anyway.

  • Personally, I think there should be places in every country where all prescription drugs are legal for the residents of that place. No need to ship them outside.

    This will allow people who want to take or try whatever it is they want to whilst completely avoiding psychiatry and it will also the first step towards giving them freedom from psychiatric coercion when they want to stop taking them.

    Bad idea? I don’t think so. Perhaps the question is, “What if people take something that is damaging to them?”. Well, if they harm themselves by not gathering the required information first, the responsibility lies with them. What about harming others? Well, sufficient information must be provided regarding the adverse effects of these drugs so that they can understand how to use them or not use them.

    Since the general public might want to stay out of such a place, that’s fine. Just limit such areas to some places. These places will be places where psychiatry can be completely bypassed and must be kept out of.

  • Julie writes: “ED is usually caused by a restrictive diet, that is, CAUSED by controlling your eating habits.

    Let me remove the ED and make it more truthful:

    Extreme overeating is usually caused by a restrictive diet, that is, CAUSED by controlling your eating habits.

    Most people who control their diet don’t engage in extreme over-eating to the point of it becoming physically dangerous even in the short term (as opposed to long term risks of cardiovascular problems etc.) as a result. We would all know at least a few people who have lost weight by regulating their eating. But none of the people I know (which would not be an enormous sample size) who have gone on long term diets ended up overeating to the point of 9000 calories a day.

    In my country, fasting for religious reasons is a common occurrence. People here do it all the time. Again, I’ve never seen anyone end up overeating in an extreme manner due to it. They may overeat for a short duration to ameliorate hunger, but not beyond a point.

    Why it took place in you as an individual would be interesting for you to know. Not in a vague manner with hypotheses or tautological labels, but the proper truth, specific to yourself. Hell, you don’t even need to tell anybody.

    Naturally, problems like this would be prevalent in the wider population. I’ve just never personally met anyone who is a binge eater to the point of it being dangerous on a day-to-day basis.

    Please don’t interpret this as being condescending. There are answers I am searching for with regards to my life as well.

  • What would happen if you tried to control your eating habits? Would it cause you so much anxiety that you would only be able to relieve it if you ate?

    Maybe I’m being crude (and you have also mentioned “Sufferers have reported rude or sarcastic responses to their reports, and many are left feeling shamed or even afraid of bringing it up again.“), but it sounds like a lot of theorizing for the “simple” fact that you would eat way too much, had poor control over it, didn’t like that aspect of yourself, and don’t have a concrete answer as to why it all happened.

    Therapy (especially that directed at eating disorders), can turn into a manipulative game, each trying to outsmart the other. “What did you eat today?” It turns into a cat-and-mouse game that can become fatal. That’s how it was for me toward the end, and I almost died as a result.

    I think this is the case with all therapy. “Therapy” is nonsense. Just a fanciful word for listening and talking inside a closed room. No matter how many scientistic names you give it (CBT or what have you), it is fundamentally just that.

    I was lucky to put an end to all that nonsense. I have had good results by making very simple changes, starting with becoming independent from my prior doctors and therapists, and making my life decisions entirely on my own. I was surprised at how fast I was able to resolve my eating disorder after that. I would suggest doing your own research and empowering yourself to come up with your own solutions.

    Absolutely agree with this. You must break free of the mercy and charity of these people and their poisonous system, which will infantilise you and stultify your potential, all with good intentions.

    Being free of the slavery of therapy helped me take a good rational look at what was best for me.

    Agree.

    I knew I had to regain a sense of passion in my life, passion about something besides losing weight. Where had that gone off to? What had happened to the young and talented music student who first took herself to therapy in 1981 and then never came back?

    Yup. I think a lot of us look back to those times. When the whole world was still in front of you, and your life was not tainted by psychiatry.

  • Yes, I am familiar of such quotes etc. But all this intellectualism is just something for people with a thinking bent of mind to mentally masturbate over.

    While it’s okay for people like Dawkins who are flying around giving speeches and being rockstars in the intellectual world; from being an admirer, I have grown weary of that internet and literary intellectual nonsense.

    The scientific status of psychiatry is a pseudo-problem. It is the first step where psychiatry and anti-psychiatry proponents clash and the argument does not go beyond that, and it just leads to a bunch of quotations of words or journal papers and then some literary jibes.

    Observing the trajectory of a planet is different than creating chemicals in a lab. Performing a surgery is different than writing code to accomplish a specific task. Investigating a murder is different than farming crops.

    These are all different tasks, have different people with different technological and social infrastructures, and different methods of investigation (with some similarities) in order to find out the truth about a specific inquiry. Putting it all under the rubric of “science” and then arguing about whether it is a science or not is a waste of time. Truth is what matters.

    The pertinent questions are regarding what the truth about psychiatry is, the everyday occurrences in the field, what its political, social, medical and legal implications are, how it is misused, and not just “science”.

    Behind psychiatry there is a legal system, a prison system, and social systems of everyday life.

  • I used to read and watch quite a bit of Richard Dawkins several years ago. I am quite familiar with his works, and also with the movement that has sprung partly from his works (Skeptics, Atheists….). It’s all a bit rotten now. Same old stuff. Evolution, atheism, yada yada….It was all very appealing to me in my late teens and early 20s.

    I think you will find the most fervent supporters of psychiatry amongst Richard Dawkins’ followers (from what I’ve heard).

    Several of them see criticism of psychiatry in the same vein as belief in astrology or the tooth fairy or Dawkins’ other favourite hypothetical creature, the “Flying Spaghetti Monster”.

  • I found the part about you not being allowed to go into the hospital because you were from an “antipsychiatry” organisation to be interesting. It’s a self-defense mechanism. Everyone has one.

    What if someone locked up in a “hospital” finds it to be the most abhorrent and traumatising time of their life? If an antipsychiatry person ends up getting them out and helping them, and then that person (whom you just got out) upholds your views, well, then he’s just antipsychiatry now too.

    The power roles thing is something we already know. I liked the part about the person playing the role of psychiatrist in the commitment hearing having a very flat affect and strange speech pattern himself.

    And yes, “antipsychiatry” is almost a diagnosis now. Antipsychiatry, critical psychiatry, pro-psychiatry; these words just mean “crank”, “moderate” and “scientific” respectively (depending on who you ask).

    Your views are seen as too extreme? You have to justify it by saying you’re “critical psychiatry”. It’s all rubbish.

    But hey, it’s all politics at the end of the day. Makes me wonder why I’m even writing this comment. It’s all obvious.

  • Dr. Hickey,

    Any young credentialed people coming up in the “Phil Hickey school of psychology”? Heaven knows you’re old and when you’re gone, there will be no one else to take up your mantle (at least not in the way you do).

    Also, since you have worked in prisons, it would be very interesting to know of your experiences amongst prison inmates and your findings regarding problems in living, thinking and feeling in prison, because I am sure there will be a relatively large population in prisons with all kinds of problems hidden under all kinds of DSM labels. Why don’t you write something regarding that? It would be most illuminating.

  • I think they are simply mind-altering drugs and like every other mind-altering drug they have their properties.

    I suppose most of the anger comes from people having them forced onto them, not being told what the harms of them can be, being mislabelled with disorders for the negative effects of the drugs, ending up with permanent disabilities, or being prescribed them based on the notion that they are “treating X condition”, when what they are more practically doing is changing a person’s thinking in a certain way or suppressing certain behaviours and feelings.

    If they were completely legal (not just by prescription) and voluntary, and were never forced on to people, or actually had full disclosure of what they really do, people may have talked about them a bit differently.

    P.S. I’m not in anyway trying to mitigate the harm that they can cause.

  • What are you saying? Why do you think that I’m in any way implying that the body should be less resilient than it is?

    And yes, that is the example I gave and said that you gave the exact same example, and I mentioned that there are other things the body can’t fix by itself, or things which become worse if treatment is not received.

  • Great. Text about neurotransmitters and receptors.

    Once again, no mention of what foods to eat in what quantities to gain the right amounts of the aformentioned nutrients.

    2 bananas a day? An apple?

    There is also no need to complicate things beyond what a layman needs to know. Nobody cares about NMDA receptors except those who take an interest in reading about them or do work associated with needing that knowledge.

  • That depends on what we are talking about. Some fevers due to common microbial agents, headaches etc., sure.

    But there are other things the body can’t simply fix properly on its own.

    Hell, I’d say make all mind altering prescription drugs legal in some places as well (with full disclosure about their effects on the body and any contraindications), so that those who want to take them can avoid psychiatry as an intermediary altogether.

    Drugs don’t take themselves. If someone finds some kind of relief from a sedative or an SSRI, let them try it (with instructions on how to do it in a safe manner), take it and stop it when they want to. It’s a lot better than giving yourself into a system which could force horrible crap on you, label you, indoctrinate your family, disease-monger and stultify your life. Easier said than done, but it’s possible in some places.

  • Frankly, I hope a day comes in the future when every human being has enough medical knowledge to reduce his/her dependence on other human beings who take up the role of medical doctors in society, so as to not be on the mercy and charity of other people for something as fundamental as our own health.

    Knowledge about our own bodies and how to ameliorate ailments must be as fundamental as learning a language or knowing how to count.

    Basic physiology, anatomy, pharmacology; at least the stuff that’s learnt in basic medical graduation.

    A person may not be able to do everything for himself/herself (like I can’t do a kidney transplant on myself), but one can learn to know signs and symptoms of infectious diseases, endocrinological conditions, heart conditions etc., and with enough knowledge make lifestyle changes or take (what are now prescription only) drugs (whilst also knowing their positive and negative effects, contraindications etc.). One could even read about them, and ask and observe 10 different people (hell, now with networking, maybe 1000s of people) who have similar problems.

    A risky and horrible idea? Maybe. But that depends on who is considering the idea.

  • As an extension to the above, some of the other things are:

    1.) Labelling of effects of psychiatric drugs as new illnesses (antidepressant or stimulant induced mania gets turned into “bipolar disorder”).

    2.) Gaslighting and the social, legal and political misuse of DSM labels to harass people, defame and lie about them.

    3.) The medicalisation of socio-legal problems into “brain disorders” in victims of abuse.

  • People should simply leave topics like climate change, vaccines, homeopathy, astrology, HIV being causative of AIDS etc., out of critical discussions of psychiatry. There is no need for comparisons with any of those things. When talking of psychiatry, talk of psychiatry. I think that’s the best rule to follow.

    It is one of the tactics used by skeptic movement dilettantes and pro-psychiatry activists to correlate people who abhor psychiatry with other groups like “climate change deniers, HIV/AIDS denial etc.”. It is also a tactic that has worked well (even unintentionally) to sell the public a lie which they find out too late. No wonder there are people who consider people who abhor psychiatry to be scientologists or whatever.

    Those talking about psychiatry are talking about psychiatry. No need to obfuscate that by bringing in the rest of the stuff.

    Also, I think, debates regarding “the scientific status of psychiatry” are a pseudo-problem for intellectuals to mentally masturbate over while neglecting truth.

    Observing the trajectory of a planet is different than building a car engine. Performing surgery is different than creating optimal paths for roadways. Creating chemicals in a lab is different than writing code to perform a specific task.

    All these activities have different people, different methods of investigation, different processes etc. involved in order to find the truth about a specific inquiry. Subsuming them all under “Science” and then debating whether something is “Science” or not is a futile exercise.

    This whole “science” charade in psychiatry, with all the advertising of brain scans, its journal publications etc. completely removes the focus from what psychiatry is like in real life, and what its social, legal, physical, medical and political consequences are. What is required for people to know is the truth.

    The truth is that only a few things happen in everyday psychiatry:

    1.) Listening and talking.

    2.) Labelling of individuals, which rob away their life’s truths, and can have egregious social, medical, legal and political consequences, sometimes permanent.

    3.) Prescribing drugs, which can also have egregious consequences.

    4.) Infantilisation and coercion, which ranges from subtle to extreme and so on.

  • Ah man, I didn’t mean it in the way you’re implying. Maybe “choosing” was the wrong word? I have no problem if you ARE homosexual, heterosexual or transgender. Is that better?

    See, this is the thing. I tried wording the thing in order to be as understanding as possible, and it’s still such a touchy subject, which is why it is fearsome to even write anything about it. One wrong word or comment can bring hell on to you.

  • This is the part that really scares me about countries like the US (and whichever other countries have recording systems like that). There is no escape huh?

    It is almost psychopathic, the way the system is constructed. No wonder some people with such labels that have robbed away their life’s truths are afraid to seek medical care for even physical problems.

    I fear that so-called developing nations will adopt this same model under the guise of “progress”.

  • The prescription reinforces the diagnosis. The patient accepts the diagnosis as valid the day she pops the first pill. They are compliant. They believe. They take the drug acknowledging the validity of psychiatry. Few question the validity of the label. They take the little pink pill and they are a patient for life. There are no cures. ”

    There was a time when I had this phase. Complete indoctrination in the language of DSM labelling.

    Frankly, it isn’t even the pills in and of themselves that are dangerous. People can start and stop pills whenever they want to, if it were under their voluntary control. It’s the middle-men, the shrinks, the labellers and defamers, that are dangerous. They rob away the truths of people’s lives by defaming them with DSM garbage, and can force unwanted drugs down people’s throats. And once labelled, anyone biologically related to the labelled individual is at risk.

    And the people who accept these labels as “a part of them” are as dangerous as the labellers too. They truly lack insight into the damage they are doing to themselves, and some of them will even spread around the acceptance of these labels with truly good intentions of helping others.

    It isn’t that the thoughts, features and life experiences associated with these terms aren’t real. Sure, they are. But the truth about an individual is descriptive. The life experiences and even underlying biology of two people labelled with the same set of labels will not be the same.

    It’s ridiculous to justify using them by saying that “syndromal concepts” exist in other fields of medicine. Saying that someone’s leg has “chronic compartment syndrome”, is different than labelling a man a “schizophrenic” or “bipolar”. The social, political, and legal implications of DSM terminology is different than that of other fields of medicine.

  • Whatever the case may be for the merits of nutrients (which I would whole heartedly support), it is absolutely necessary to bash truth-obfuscating and disempowering labels that have ruined so many lives.

    If you “also don’t like it”, then stop talking of “ADHD children”. Put something more truthful like “inattentive children” in the title.

  • It doesn’t matter which country a person is from, be it the US, UK, Israel, India etc. Psychiatry is psychiatry everywhere.

    I am tired and angry with seeing people end up in the victim role, begging people/institutions, be it professionals or courts of law, to basically “be nice” and not harm them. Makes one very vengeful, doesn’t it? There is really no justice too. Will anyone even see you as a rational person once you’re labelled with DSM nonsense? They are practically caricatures of people.

    It doesn’t matter how good the intentions of the staff are (or aren’t). The only way we can protect vulnerable people is by making sure they have safe spaces, and don’t end up in these places in the first place, where they will be labelled and may have horrible drugs forced on them.

    Having the “right to choose” between “hospitals” is akin to choosing between being shat on by a cow or a goat or a hippo. It’s no choice at all.

    I hope you find peace.

  • Don’t forget the number of teenagers that are prescribed SSRIs because they are depressed or anxious (for whatever reasons), some of whom then go on to experience SSRI induced mania which is then re-labelled or re-branded as “bipolar disorder”.

    Once a person is labelled this way, it is not just he/she who is in danger, but anyone biologically related to him/her. Said person will become a “family history of ‘bipolar disorder’ ” to his/her biological relatives.

    The next doctor who sees a relative of the initially labelled person may not even look at the actual history of how the original person came to be labelled that way, but will certainly see the “diagnosis”/label.

    I say this from practical experience.

  • @oldhead: I answered that in the very same paragraph.

    @Frank: “I would even give your crazy woman, this village idiot of yours, the right to a trial before I would see her incarcerated, even if the prison to which she would be confined claims to be a hospital. Locking this woman up without a trial, if we are to allude to the origin of the word, would be to show her an extreme lack of hospitality on our part. It would not be the courteous thing to do. “

    I agree.

  • There’s a lot of talk on this site about abolishing psychiatry. This would imply removal of psychiatry as a medical specialty in all hospitals, a complete shutting down of all psychiatric wards everywhere, a complete abolition on medical licenses dished out relating to psychiatry and psychology.

    Now, let’s imagine a world where this has happened. What do you do when some individuals believe that aliens are communicating with them via radiowaves? Who might make incisions into their bodies to remove a non-existent alien chip? People who are chronically psychotic, who hallucinate and see things which aren’t there and can literally do very little in terms of having a productive life? Now, if these people are non-violent and non-disruptive, there is no need to bother them. If some of them are non-violent but disruptive (like disrupting public spaces), they will be forcibly removed which may again make them violent and compel people to treat them in some form or the other.

    I remember an absolutely psychotic woman who was totally unclean and used to roam around randomly, who would take up space in a small bus stand in the town where I lived in. She had to be removed from there because she was a nuisance for the people who had to board their buses. I once tried approaching this lady, simply out of curiosity, to ask her what her name was, and she ran towards me with a brick to hit me. I ran for my life. In a shrink’s office, this woman would definitely be labelled a “schizophrenic”. But that is not her truth.

    Psychiatry for most of us who are coherent people able to think and write in a relatively logical manner is an absolute curse. This has nothing to do with maintaining voluntary relationships of listening and talking to people, nor with voluntary consumption of drugs. Neither of these things mandate the requirements for psychiatrists in between. Drug companies make drugs. Not psychiatrists. And drugs don’t take themselves. Psychiatrists either prescribe them to people or force them to take them and do not tell the whole truth about these pills. So, mostly, they are dangerous middle-men who label and defame people.

    But, the existence of that small subset of individuals who are on the extreme end of the spectrum will always be a reason to have some sort of organisation/intervention to monitor and take care of them. Let’s say you abolish all of psychiatry. Well, something else will definitely take its place.

    What I would like to see is firstly, an abolition of all forms of psychiatric DSM/ICD labelling. These labels are tautologies and truth-obfuscating. No wonder the public thinks of “schizophrenics and bipolars running amok on the streets”. A removal of these terms would imply that people get closer to thinking in terms of the truth. Some psychotic people may run amok on the streets. Some of them may have become like that due to abuse and others may be like that due to some inherent features. The former are people who may be hurt by psychiatry. The latter are people we can’t do much about. None of these people are “bipolar or schizophrenic”. Each person is who he/she is as an individual and has a truth (both biological and environmental) specific to them. So, in that sense, these labels are nonsense.

    The truth is descriptive. “A person was born here. He had these circumstances growing up. These things happened to him. He did so-and-so things etc.”. Even biologically, the truth specific to an individual has nothing to do with the junk they are labelled with.

    Also, due to a small subset of people, everyone else, who is hardly anything like them, is getting affected. Why butcher the lives of otherwise healthy males and females?

    People here talk of abolition. But they mention absolutely no solutions as to what they would do with some of these individuals on the extreme end of the curve. Unless you find a solution to that, the public would NEVER agree to an abolition of psychiatry.

    You people are really irrational to think that you could ever achieve that.

  • You don’t need labels to consume pills. You are free to consume as much Triavil as you want, if it makes you feel better.

    Maybe what YOU have (which your shrink has labelled as “schizoaffective disorder”) is a bio-genetic brain disease. Don’t drag everyone else into it.

    Also, the author may not have an MD. But that does not matter. A lot of the problems that psychiatry subsumes under its banner have nothing to do with medicine.

    Also, naturally you would have people other than MDs to write about certain issues because MDs just parrot the standard party line.

    The “you are not a medical doctor” line is quite futile on MIA. Many here are tired of being at the pseudo-mercy and pseudo-charity of medical psychiatry doctors who provide no answers, but do engage in dangerous and defamatory labeling and drugging.

    We are all searching for the truth specific to ourselves. Psychiatry gives no answers. Just labels and pills.

    Do you understand what a specific truth is?

    Person has a fever. Why? Because plasmodium falciparum (as an example) was found in his body.

    Person (like you) has suicidal tendencies. Why? Because of “schioaffective disorder”. And I suppose a “diagnosis” of “headache disorder” for headaches is also valid because aspirin makes it better.

    Before you bother telling me that descriptive “diagnoses” exist in other medical fields, know that flaws in other medical fields do not absolve flaws in psychiatry. Also, the social, political and legal implications of psychiatric labelling are very different than non-psychiatric labels.

    You also have no biological proof (not behavioural proof) specific to yourself that what you have is a “bio-genetic brain disease”.

    Perhaps then, it is best to say “I don’t exactly know why but I feel bad and the pills make me feel better and that is why I take them” and leave it at that.

    And as John Hoggett pointed out, if the shrink had given you a different “diagnosis”/label and the same pill, you would have been on here saying that that disorder is a bio-genetic brain disease.

    Trust me (I have been there), you are doing a disservice to yourself with your mentality, and this has nothing to do with whether or not you want to take pills.

  • Does one need a study to make out that the rates of suicide in prison will obviously be higher? If you have a life sentence, you will rot in there forever. Death is naturally a more desirable option.

    If you are not in for a life sentence, you may still not have much of a life outside with a criminal record.

    The only thing they need to stop in prisons is sexual assault. That is all.

  • Lawrence Kemelson writes:

    “The concept of “mental illness” takes away people’s free will to adaptively cope with life’s struggles in ways of their own choosing, and puts it into the hands of medical authorities who claim to know the best way to cope, claim that they’re the only ones who can “heal”, and have been given power by the state to enforce compliance with their “treatments” which usually benefit the state rather than the client. I read Szasz’s “The Myth of Mental Illness” before starting my psychiatric residency training, so I was not disillusioned – I knew this was a big part of my field, and spoke against it during my residency, for which I was nearly thrown out of the program.”

    “It’s not my place to claim that my medical education has given me any answers.”

    This is one of the most positively amazing things I have heard a psychiatrist write. If the majority of people in the “medical profession” of psychiatry thought like this, it would collapse a large part of the work-force.

  • @ Stephen:

    My point is, that a lot of it is nonsense. It’s simply playing to the mind-brain correlation of behaviours.

    It is worthless mental masturbation in everyday life, and it is screwing over people.

  • A person I know, recently had seizures. There’s no history of epilepsy in the person’s family. We were all a bit perturbed as to how it happened.

    After tests, we found out that eggs of a worm formed cysts inside the person’s brain. They call it “neurocystic sarcosis”.

    Imagine the doctors labelled this person with “seizure disorder” and only gave him/her anti-convulsants. He/she would be dead.

    This is what psychiatry is doing. They are defaming and ruining people’s lives.

  • Look at these idiots. This is from Natasha Tracy’s post titled: ”
    Are All Doctors, Psychiatrists and Scientists Lying All the Time?”, where a person “Riley C” writes:
    :

    “Do any of you anti psychiatry [moderated] have a PhD in psychology? I do. Psychiatric disorders have been proven time and time again to be brain disorders! You can tell from a PET scan or a fMRI if a person has schizophenia. Such as large ventricles and frontal cortex atrophy. Similar things are seen in bipolar disorder. You antipsychritry morons should be [moderated].

    Moderator – I understand how frustrated you are with these groups as I feel the same way but we have rules here as to how people treat each other and you can’t say those kinds of things here.”

    These fools are still listing the mind-brain relation, which we all know. Why don’t they talk about the people that they are labelling as “bipolar” due to the effects of their own drugs (mania caused by psychiatric drugs)? And if the scans are so specific, why not use them to separate (in a blind fashion), 50 people who have X disorder vs 50 people who have nothing and prove that those mental states are primarily biological in every single human being with that label and have little to do with the shit that they have faced? They can’t. They accuse us of mind-brain duality, but they use the same paltry “mental activity is correlated with brain activity” argument everywhere, as if that is some new truth.

    I suppose “Riley C” feeling like taking a dump when he is supposed to attend an important meeting is also a “brain disorder” because it is correlated with some brain activity inside his thick skull.

    We know that these people aren’t “evil and always ‘lying’ “. That does not matter. Their intentions and benevolence are a secondary thing.

    Granted that this is from 2011, and a lot can change in 6 years, but I hope this person has understood something by now. If “Ph.Ds” in Psychology are like this, they are a friggin’ danger to people.

  • What psychiatrists, DSM and psychiatric labelling do really well is rob the truth of people’s lives away from them.

    You label people with 2 labels, it will look like they have 2 “illnesses”. You label them with 5 labels, it will look like they have 5 “illnesses”.

    When the consequences of said labelling have to be faced by the person labelled with this junk, the cowardly bastards (the psychiatrists) are nowhere to be found. In fact, sometimes they will blame you, the screwed over person, for the consequences of their own disgusting methods.

    The truth about a person is always descriptive. Causes and effects. Causal factors and effects.

    People tell you junk like “labels guide ‘treatment'”, which is utter bullshit. If anything, they make everything worse, because you are basing your conclusions on false knowledge. It’s like labelling people with “fever disorder” and “headache disorder”. The worst part is, once a person is labelled, they put everyone who is biologically related to them at risk, because they will then become their “family history”. DSM labels are not family histories. An actual history when it comes to a person’s life is descriptive.

    Imagine the number of kids with attention problems or anxiety/depression (for whatever reasons) who have been prescribed Ritalin and SSRIs, who have gone on to experience manic episodes due to those drugs, and now they are labelled with “co-morbid conditions” like ” ‘ADHD’+ ‘Bipolar Disorder’ ” or ” ‘OCD’+ ‘Bipolar Disorder’ “. Disgusting.

    If you are physically assaulted, you can even go to the police. What can you do if psychiatry and psychiatric terminology is being used to harass, defame and gaslight you? You can’t even get justice. This has been happening to me for years, and I have been able to do nothing about it.

    Day by day, I am losing hope. I can understand why someone like Matt Stevenson killed himself (not that I want to die).

    DSM labelling is defamation and libel. That is it.

  • Why do these articles on “manic-depression and the brain blah blah” never talk about antidepressant induced mania? That you guys are labelling people as manic-depressives/bipolars because of the effects of your own drugs?

    More importantly, why do they not tell the truth? Nobody in clinical psychiatry is checking anybody’s brain. Those articles are nothing more than useless mental masturbation.

    What psychiatry definitely is doing is labelling people with defamatory tautological labels, obfuscating an individual’s truth and providing no concrete biological evidence in any specific individual in real life (when I say real life, I mean everyday people, not research and journal papers).

    Also, when I say “biological evidence”, I don’t mean simple brain correlations. We all know that pretty much everything we do will be associated with something in our brains. That is meaningless.

    All pro-biopsychiatry related articles on the internet hide the truth about real life occurrences in psychiatry. All you do is talk to people and give them drugs. Nobody needs psychiatrists to consume drugs. Talking to you guys is dangerous too.

    False biological arguments are used to ruin people’s lives (even if unintentionally). Criminal justice issues are turned into medical problems. Problems in living are biologised. Hell, argumentation with psychiatrists is dangerous. All it does is get you deeper into the brothel of psychiatry.

  • One look at doglegblog’s Pininterest page and her links to bullet points about “mental illness”, “bipolar disorder” etc. show that she might be from the type of crowd that hangs around websites like Healthy Place, Crazy Meds etc.

    These people’s ideas are even more harmful and dangerous than the murderers and maimers she’s talking about. They are promoting and marketing the all too common “myth of mental illness” (the way it is promoted today) and will result in multitudes of people, especially youngsters, devalue themselves, end up being dependent on a system and a community that will never truly allow them to reach their fullest potential in life (all with supposedly benevolent intentions of course).

  • I think streetphotobeing making an assumption about why you drink is not appropriate.

    And yes, ” ‘bipolar disorder’ is a real disease”, just like ” ‘fever disorder’ is a real disease which ’causes’ elevated body temperature” and ” ‘headache disorder’ is a real disease which ’causes’ one’s head to ache.”

    No one is saying what you aren’t experiencing is real. Just don’t expect people to agree with your truth-obfuscating terminology.

    Also, do you realise people are being stamped with the label of “bipolar disorder” for the iatrogenic effects of the very drugs that psychiatrists prescribe (like mania caused by antidepressants or stimulants)?

  • dogleblog writes :“I am perfectly happy to be on my “cocktail” of meds for my bipolar disorder II, BPD, and anxiety”

    This actually tells me hardly anything about what you find problematic in yourself except a few labels.

    “These drugs–whether from a farm or Big Pharma or a mad scientist’s basement–have saved my life. I no longer drink until I black-out, I no longer go home with complete strangers from bars (neither do I drink anymore), and I am making better decisions (although I still struggle to have normal interactions with people–I fear I will always say inappropriate things and hurt people and drive them away. A recent ex-friend said I was too “intense”).”

    In other words, one set of drugs that you don’t give shit about (in terms of how they came into being), makes you feel better than another drug that you don’t give a shit about.

    “As I am 53 years old, I don’t see another way to control my behavior. And yes, I go to therapy (when I can find a good one) and that has helped me see how skewed my view of relationships and how I insist that people conform to my way of thinking. “

    Do you really think you should need people playing the role of mental health workers OR psychiatric labels to consume something that, in simple terms, and in your own view, helps you perform better?

    “Does no one have a similar experience to mine? Perhaps if I had been diagnosed when my symptoms became noticeable (around ages 5 to 10) and had been shown another way to communicate, my life would have met its potential rather than being a series of emergencies and deep depressions and very, very poor decisions (before being medicated).”

    It sounds like you’re someone who finds taking some drugs helpful, but has no idea how deep the negative consequences of psychiatrists, and truth-obfuscating labelling can go.

    Perhaps if I had been diagnosed when my symptoms became noticeable (around ages 5 to 10) and had been shown another way to communicate, my life would have met its potential rather than being a series of emergencies and deep depressions and very, very poor decisions (before being medicated).

    Don’t be too sure of that. You may have ended up not even being where you are right now.