Saturday, November 18, 2017

Comments by registeredforthissite

Showing 100 of 340 comments. Show all.

  • @Igor:

    What if someone has no psychiatric labels and STILL abuses you?

    See how crazy psychiatry and neurononsense has made you?

    “Cluster B personality”, “neurotypical”, “X and Y traits”…..urgh.

    You had a shitty mother and 2 shitty GFs. And that’s it.

    All the intellectualising and playing around with psychiatric jargon and labelling criteria is not going to change that simple truth of life.

    It won’t bring you back your childhood, nor will it make anyone else’s better.

  • I don’t have much to say about people’s sexual orientation, but the word “mad” is defined as “mentally ill or insane”, which practically no one here in the comment section is.

    So, I would NOT be one to involve or associate myself with a “mad pride” movement of any sort. Nothing to be proud of in being mad whatsoever.

    When I wrote about “using it back against them”, I meant it in a practical manner, like in a court of law, for instance.

  • I don’t care how you behaved or thought. Personality Disorders are the most egregious and defamatory labels that exist in psychiatry.

    It doesn’t matter even if someone is a serial killer. There are ordinary everyday words for such a person. “Criminal, “serial killer” etc.

    People should be encouraged to stand up and take some form of action collectively against psychiatry and more importantly the labelling psychiatrists, if they have been labelled with that junk.

    However, if someone is using such labels against you, you’d be doing a good job using it back against them.

    P.S. What the hell is ” ‘Mad’ Pride”. Why even call yourself “mad”?

  • Great. Yet another SSRI/SNRI induced mania story. The same thing happened to me, once in 2007, and then in between 2010-2011, with around the worst “episode” happening in around August 2011. Sertraline and Fluvoxamine were the culprits in each case, respectively. I did so many crazy things during that time, that the consequences of it are haunting me and negatively (a word that doesn’t really encapsulate the misery) impacting me to this day.

    Unfortunately, psychiatry also defames those of us who are prescribed these drugs and experience mania as a result, as “bipolar”. But one half of the mood that comprises of that label is created by the very drugs prescribed by psychiatrists themselves. They are defaming us, after our lives have already been ruined. Naturally, once you are out of it and realise what you have done, depression follows, not as an illness, but as a consequence.

    Imagine you have tuberculosis, and you are prescribed Isoniazid fo it. Then, imagine that the Izoniazid makes you psychotic, and the prescribing doctor tells you and your family that you have “schizophrenia” which was just “uncovered” by the dug. You would butcher that idiot. But a similar occurrence is happening everyday in psychiatry.

    If a person takes a prescription drug and becomes manic and psychotic, they defame you as “bipolar”, though it is something that would likely have never happened without the drug in the first place.

    Psychiatrists should be sued and their medical license should be cancelled for this practice. If you were smart, hardworking and functional enough to get a medical degree, you can do many other things in life.

  • In “3rd world” countries you could probably do something to escape.

    I suppose in the developed world, the structures have become shackles. Not so much if your life is great to begin with. But in cases like this, when a person has a history of forced treatment (or any history at all), you cannot outrun the law. You could try to defend yourself against the cops and sheriffs etc., but they’ll probably just physically assault you, perhaps even shoot you.

    I fear coming to the “developed” world. Perhaps I am better off in my “3rd world dump where people crap on the streets”.

  • Oh my god! Those notes make me vomit. These places dehumanise you like lab rats. Pathetic. And people call this HELP?

    Don’t know why this article does not have millions of views and thousands of comments.

  • Over intellectualisation and neurononsense are going to kill society. If we gave ourselves up to these neuro-trolls, we’d all have our brains in vats.

    So what if addiction is “correlated with brain changes”? That’s also the case when a neuro-troll is taking a dump. It’s also the case when a neuro-troll chooses not to take a dump and takes one at a later time.

    The incessant insistence of neuro-trolls to remove will and choice by intellectualising it with neuro-nonsense is destructive.

    If you have the power to threaten an alcoholic with water boarding every time he takes a drink, you will find that his “brain disease” disappears rather quickly.

    Miraculous isn’t it?

  • If anything, the gaslighting, the lies and the misuse of labels from the abuser, the disease-mongering and conversion and treatment of trauma as part of a piss poorly defined “illness” have truly made me act in ways which may make other people feel that there’s something wrong with ME, because they don’t understand what’s happened to me, if they see me during moments when I am suffering and acting out from the injustice of it all.

    I want justice. That is my treatment. I cannot even get justice from that man because I am the one with the labels. Most people can’t even understand the complexity of psychiatry. Forget about courts and lawyers.

    I once had a dignified life. What I have been reduced to and the pain I am going through on a daily basis is something very few can understand. And even if they understand it, they can DO nothing to ACTUALLY help me. Not the fake pseudo-help of mental health.

  • @FeelinDiscouraged

    I am fairly certain that JClaude is a perfectly good person, a family man etc. trying to do right by himself and the world.

    P.S. I take a low dose of psychotropic drugs myself, which I would eventually like to taper off from. It’s no different than if I were to drink alcohol every night to calm myself. With what I’m taking right now, I don’t have any side effects which are too bad (though I had horrific side effects for many years on other junk), except that if I accidentally forget to take them for 2 days, the withdrawal kills me and I absolutely HAVE to stay on them. I know if I want to taper off it will take me years.

    However, I would NEVER risk going into psychiatry or psychology again, be it to take or NOT take drugs. I know full well the labelling, coercion and infantilisation that comes from that. I have already had DSM labels and the language of psychiatry used against me since I was a kid (even to this day) due to circumstances that occurred before I was even born. The man who did that is of course, still happily living (with a large supportive family), despite being a pathological liar, a master gaslighter and manipulator. But it ruined my life.

    It isn’t the mere existence of drugs that’s the problem. Psychiatrists don’t make drugs. Drug companies do. Drugs don’t take themselves. It’s the middlemen who are dangerous. The psychiatrists and psychologists. The labellers and defamers. The people who can make things worse by making you consume horrible pills that will make your hands shake like you have parkinson’s, cause mania (which they will again relabel as “bipolar” etc). People who will attempt to drug you in the hope to solve things that are not solved by drugs. ALSO, the people who will try to solve things that are not solved by talking.

  • Actually, they are very much in your power. You partake in the system that labels people. You COULD have done something. Things which would require you to sacrifice your personal reputation and career. Things like standing against your profession and showing them how DSM labels obfuscate the truth about an individual, how they are used to gaslight people etc., and personally standing against labelling people. As you said, you HAD to put labels on people (perhaps for insurance). Why not be the renegade psychologist who stands against doing that? Hell, if not go against an entire profession, did you ever stand up in a court of law and testify “This man/woman is misusing DSM labels against his/her spouse/child etc.”?

    But you chose not to. You remained yet another cog in the system that re-abuses people all the time because everyone in the system is just another “well-intentioned” self-preserving cog.

    Truly helping people requires putting your hand in the shit and cleaning it. Doing things which may end up having a negative impact on your own life. Of course, many of us would shirk away from doing that due to self-preservation. But then what we provide is half-baked pseudo-help which if it helps one problem, creates two more. So, perhaps, we should actually just publicly state the truth as it is, instead of maintaining the false facade of “helping professions”.

    Let’s just not pretend that what you did NOT do (more so than what you did), did not contribute to the ruination of the lives of at least a few, despite what your intentions were. And I’m not singling you out here. This applies to pretty much 99.9% of the mental health profession.

    Psychologists and psychiatrists repeatedly give seminars on ending mental health stigma. I have to laugh at them, because they create half of it themselves by labelling individuals and obfuscating their truth away. Never do I see them give speeches or talk about the EXTREMELY harmful consequences of what they are doing.

    P.S. I do commend you for coming on here and leaving a comment. Most people in your professions (psychiatry OR psychology) conveniently hide because facing the truth puts them in a state of severe denial. Anosognosia perhaps?

  • “Therapy” can be just as bad and even worse than drugs. It keeps people trapped in an endless loop of listening and talking. In abuse situations, especially when the abused is vulnerable and less economically and socially powerful than the abuser, the abused person ends up in therapy, ends up with labels, on drugs etc., while the abuser conveniently escapes scott-free.

    Literally, is criminal justice ever a part of “therapy”? Do these people understand that concept?

    The worst part is. Once you have labels, those abusers can easily use them against you to gaslight you, claim that you are insane etc. So, psychiatry just doubly hurts already hurt people.

  • If the author steps into another mental health facility with this story, they will then “treat” her for trauma. Trauma caused by those idiots in the first place. Yet again, she will be trapped for a few more years in the mental health system. Ad infinitum…

    Oh…if we only knew what these professions are like…

    We would have RUN. RUN the other way. I suppose many just run till they die.

    I still see people going on to YouTube and Twitter and proclaiming their new “diagnoses” publicly (nonsense like OCD, ADHD etc.), with the hashtag #EndStigma.

    I want to tell those idiots that they will never end any stigma unless they do not allow mental health workers to label them with defamatory labels, and more importantly, they don’t use it on themselves. But it’s pointless.

    The media, celebrities, skeptic movements etc. have brainwashed and convinced people of how good psychiatry is (with their superficial, seemingly rational arguments[dilettante stuff of course]), and what cranks all antipsychiatry people are. Most likely the only response you will get is what an ignoramus you are, even by the ignoramuses who so proudly embrace their “diagnoses”.

    They’ll find out…the hard way.

  • “And I stay as far away from psych professionals as possible–even the sincere, well-meaning ones. Those people are truly delusional and dangerous!”

    Yup. The sincere well meaning mental health workers are as dangerous as any. And they are indeed delusional because they will continue to follow their standard protocols thinking it will be helpful despite telling them that it has hurt you and will continue to do so.

  • People here keep talking about mental health workers “lining their pockets”, “money” etc.

    Here, in my country, there are many hospitals, some run by the state, some run by religious organisations (like Christian missionaries) where the doctors don’t get paid anything close to what they could make in private practice or by going to the west. I think many of them are completely aware of the “money” card that will be thrown at them and choose to have no conflicts of interests of that sort.

    But guess what. The same stuff still happens. Psychiatry is still psychiatry.

    They still label people with junk. They still tell families that if their children become manic from psychiatric drugs, that they have “bipolar disorder”. They still result in the psychiatric indoctrination of families. Their methods still cause the social and legal issues and misuse of psychiatry that is consistently prevalent around the world, wherever psychiatry exists. It still results in the unintentional (on the part of psychiatrists) abuse of already abused people.

    The worst part is, hell, they don’t even NEED to label people here. In western countries, people get labelled, because insurance needs it for billing. Most people here pay cash (because it’s nowhere near as expensive as in the west), and yet, they STILL use DSM labels. They are STILL used in courts of law to defame people, to obfuscate truths, to write lies or manipulations, in order to win cases.

    So, I don’t think money, and “them lining their pockets” is the only issue here. You could turn that “money” card on antipsychiatry people as well, claiming they do their work to sell books etc.

  • @F.S.

    I don’t understand. So, are you saying that you should have made better choices (choice implies you’re in control) or that you were not in control of your actions and you should have been transferred to a hospital instead? You seem to be saying two different things in two different posts. Or were you being sarcastic in the first post?

    Also, just curious to know, what makes you manic (“bipolar disorder” is not an answer)? Prescription/street drugs or just spontaneous?

  • Good lord, who gives a shit?

    People are getting screwed out there and intellectuals have fun debating impractical junk which is of no use in everyday life like “the philosophy of mind”, “the scientific status of psychiatry” etc. or writing their next new book.

  • Pro-psychiatry people and some skeptic movement fools keep (falsely) accusing critics of psychiatry as thinking in terms of “mind-body dualism”. They (fraudulently) accuse Szasz of the same. Such nonsense. We all know that there is no mind without a brain. So what? There is no mind without a liver either.

  • The study which Matt read and felt hopeless over is not something which many of us here have not felt. One just has to go to the heavily pro-psychiatry sites and read the junk people write there, with all the jargon, intellectualisation, stats and debates. It is enough to make anyone who has practically (and not by reading journal papers and science blogs) been through what psychiatry (and the social and psychological consequences of it), with the best of intentions behind it, does to someone, go into a depression and create a sense of artificial disability out of fear, even if they are not actually like that.

  • Being called an asshole is not considered a medical diagnosis. It is not going to appear somewhere in a medical or court record unless in the context of “he called him/her an asshole”. It is not going to appear in a news clip on TV where some crackpot does something ludicrous and the newsreader reads “he was a schizophrenic and bipolar too”.

    Also, it was an analogy. I could have easily written, with the same meaning, “there is a similarity among people one designates as assholes”. I could not have used the word “asshole” at all. Instead I could have written “wonderful people” and it would work the same.

    Acceptance of situations one considers unacceptable
    is the bedrock of the struggle to survive.

    Some aspects of what is considered to be treatment may have helped a few. It is the aspects that have hurt them as much or more, or unjust occurrences that result in people landing here.

    You seem to be extremely perturbed by this death. But were you as perturbed about the man’s life? When someone dies it becomes about “he could have been helped etc.” but when one is living things just go on as they are.

  • “I thought the whole point of a personality disorder designation was that it was not a supposed illness “like any other”, but more about behavioural and characterological problems?

    Like all classifications (pretty much all nouns really) the nittygritty is arbitrary, and a little bit slippery, but there are remarkable similarities in problems from person to person that end up with the borderline label — mostly women although I’m given to understand it’s as prevalent in men as it is in women.

    Some people rejoice in the designation, others are reviled by it. But it can’t be hidden, surely? How can the intensities be hidden in the real world? I expect in the world of work for some people that is possible, given that masks are available and rewards and punishments tend to be absolute.

    I think if you can overcome the difficulties there should be no need to be concerned about a label given to previous behaviours and thinking styles. What does it matter to someone recovered?”

    Of course not. Are problems of character medical problems now? Why should it not matter to a person if their truth has been obfuscated away in a defamatory manner by a DSM label? So what if they have “recovered” (whatever that is in a person’s life)? Ever seen how such labels are misused in the social sphere, courts of law, marriages etc? Know how easily they are weaponisable and used to obfuscate the truth away?

    So what if there are similarities in people with that label? There are similarities in people I designate as assholes as well.

  • Are you friggin’ kidding me?!!! SSRIs for dogs?!

    Wow. The world has gone crazy.

    When dogs become manic due to SSRIs, they will say the SSRIs uncovered an “underlying illness” and the dog was bipolar all along.

  • Death is not the end of one’s story. It just means that they ran out of time (voluntarily or involuntarily) to complete it.

    I read the part regarding his notes. It sounds like he died of fear, and a created hopelessness. The same kind of hopelessness that getting involved in psychiatry and living with the indignity of being labelled with garbage that obfuscates one’s truth, creates.

    But ultimately, as a person who was well versed with Szasz, he chose to terminate his life (given the circumstances) and it is not any inherent malady that killed him.

    There are probably many such people who kill themselves of this (but end up becoming examples of deaths due to whatever DSM label): i.e. they kill themselves because of the hopelessness that psychiatry, psychiatric labelling, the social ramifications of it etc. create; but these occurrences are likely recorded as “deaths due to mental illness” or “deaths due to X or Y disorder” when they should be recorded as “death due to fear, disgust and indignation”.

    Suicide weakens the goal and spirit of this place. Victory is a part of life. Not of death.

    P.S. I bet the Fuller Torrey types out there are laughing their asses off right now saying “See…the schizophrenic should have stayed on his treatment”.

    Personally, it doesn’t matter really. I will not wallow in misery and be shocked at this death. It is the fear of preventing deaths of these nature that creates the psychiatric coercive system. A man chose to kill himself like millions before him and millions after him. That is all there is to it.

    When his body could walk and talk, he had a goal. The voluntarily imposed cessation of those functions does not hinder or take away from that goal.

  • You know, frankly, the term “science” is used way too much these days to justify an ideological position of “we are correct and you are not”. I feel, it is an unhelpful term, that only leads to endless mental masturbation and pointless intellectualisation. The “scientific nature of psychiatry” is a pseudo-problem that obscures the truth.

    Building a car engine is different than observing the trajectory of a planet. Studying the structure of a leaf is different than writing a computer program to accomplish a specific task. These are different activities, and consist of different set-ups and different people (and different infrastructure) with different mental states, environments, motivations and objectives working on them. No point obfuscating the truth by putting it all under the banner of “science” and engaging in argumentation of whether it is “science” or not.

    The more pertinent question is, what is the truth about psychiatry? What is the nature of these truths? What are the contexts of these truths?

  • My point in writing that is not to spread vitriol, nor to prevent people from helping those kids. My point is, at least, MadInAmerica should promote the non-use of those words amongst mental health workers who work in association with it. That is how change starts.

    Or was that PDF on “oppositional defiant disorder” made to appeal to the more conventional masses as a matter of expedience and not principle?

  • Edited my original comment after reading the article more thoroughly.

    Okay, so you gave addressed the concept of not labelling children with such a label.

    The next frontier is to convince some of these mental health workers to deal with these kids without labelling them as such and calling something what it is.

    The Ten Tips article about ODD, with the MadInAmerica label still carries statements such as:

    1.) “The number one situation I see is that children diagnosed with ODD feel grossly misunderstood and once they’re better understood their need for defiance goes way down.”

    Isn’t it better to say some children feel grossly misunderstood, while other children are indeed misunderstood?

    2.) “Children with ODD get angry easily ”

    Isn’t it more truthful to say that some children get angry easily and that in some cases this anger may be unjustified and in some cases pretty justified?

  • I have no idea TBH. It is hearsay. I was not told about the details, and it was a passing remark made to me by someone (someone that I am not even in touch with anymore).

    However, even if they (whether it is individuals or collectively) have become violent, I don’t see that as a bad thing, which is what I was trying to get across.

  • Sorry. My intention wasn’t to be rude. The answer to your question was already in what I had written and I thought you missed it.

    Also, the answer to your question is yet again in the text you have quoted.

    This like someone writing “My name is Jack” and you asking “What is your name?” after they have explicitly mentioned it.

  • “By law, I am mandated to report anyone who says that they want to kill themselves. I believe that people have the right to take their own lives. But I would never tell anyone to do so. This is a very personal view that I hold for myself.“

    I hold the same view and behave the same. The responsibility when it comes to suicide lies with the person themselves. However, if someone is committing suicide, leaving behind small kids to fend for themselves etc., then it becomes an issue. But, like you, I would never tell a person to kill themselves for obvious reasons.

    “Unless a person has a gun or knife or has taken bottles full of pills you have all the time in the world to explore what is going on in their lives. It is often in that exploration that people find that perhaps killing themselves is not exactly what they want to do. It is often in the listening to people that they realize that someone is willing to take the time to care and for me, this made all the difference in the world when I tried to kill myself. I also know that, if a person truly does want to end their lives there is really nothing that anyone can do to stop them.“

    What do you do practically to help them except “showing them that someone cares” and listening and talking? Listening and talking won’t do anything practical for them.

    “The “patient” and I are always overruled and I am treated in a condescending manner by the clinicians. It is as if I never said anything at all during the meeting.“

    “There is also another problem with the drugs. In the state where I live people can be mandated by law to take the drugs. You can be taken to court and the judge will mandate that you have no choice and you will take the drugs. What they usually do is get the psychiatrist to arrange it so that you will be given one of the long lasting shots of one of the “antipsychotic” drugs. You are mandated to appear at the community mental health clinic once a month for the shot and if you don’t show up they issue a bench warrant for you to be picked up and taken to court. Then you are brought right on over to the state “hospital” where I work and you will be admitted. It’s disgusting to say the least.”

    Yeah, this is the thing. In cases where you are re-abusing an already abused person with “compassionate coercion”, they will try and strike back.

    Recently, a person told me that people in the antipsychiatry movement best not align themselves with organisations like NARPA because they have become violent. How can you blame them for becoming violent when something unjust has gone on for far too long?

    A day will come when a “patient” will seriously hurt or kill a “doctor” or a judge as vengeance for ruining their lives.

    Of course, they will conveniently blame it on the person’s “mental illness” or “antipsychiatry activism/activists”. The public will also eat these words up. Violent organisations will be labelled as “terrorists”. It’s an uphill battle.

    What indeed can be done about these people Mr. Gilbert? Large demonstrations in front of a hospital to get a person out? Violenc

  • I think antidepressants work for some people and don’t for others, the same way drinking alcohol to relax works for some and works horribly for others.

    But, till when are you people going to point out that depression is correlated with biology? The trivial fact that we are biological creatures and everything we do is related in some way to our bodies, be it laughing, crying, pooping, having sex or whatever else it is, is practically senseless in real life unless you are working to make new drugs or the like.

    And “therapy” is an endless trap of listening and talking, except in a few cases. How many times have we seen “therapists” give money to people who are distressed because they lack funds? How many times have we seen them barge into abusive homes to save children from being abused? When do we ever see them risking their own neck to do anything for anyone, except sitting and talking endlessly in a closed room and keeping people trapped in “therapy” with no tangible solutions to their problems?

    Nope, instead, it is an endless trap of summoning the person to the therapist’s office, making “observations” about “improvement”, sending them back solution-less to their home and waiting to do the same thing another day.

    Great for the therapist’s career. Not so great for the client.

  • “‘mental health literacy’ program being rolled out in Canada (and other countries) that is now part of teacher training at some Canadian universities. Similar “mental health literacy” initiatives can be found around the world”

    You’re right. This is a common occurrence in my country (India) too. The poor souls who will enter into psychiatry have no idea what they’re getting themselves into. They will be enamored by the legitimacy of “medical doctors” to their own peril.

    “Similar “mental health literacy” initiatives can be found around the world. In my hometown, mental health professionals have partnered with high schools to identify signs of “emerging borderline personality disorder” in students. At-risk students are encouraged to receive therapy that asks them to accept this highly stigmatising “personality disorder,” which is presented as a valid “mental illness,” into their long-term identity. “

    Sickening. The entire field functions on truth obfuscating tautological labels. I tried explaining to a psychiatrist that half the stigma comes from their ghastly labels. They seem to be in denial of this fact. They are the ones causing a lot of the stigma and spreading false notions about these things.

    These kids will internalise these labels and it will lead to mental destruction without them even knowing it.

    Not to mention, they even engage in “family education”, successfully indoctrinating the families of the people whom they label.

    People need to have the option to not be labeled, and if still done so, they should be able to file a defamation suit.

    The enterprise of psychiatric “therapy” is to a large degree, a societal cancer on the global level.

    My question to you Mr.Deacon is, apart from writing blog posts, how are you practically fighting your brethren and providing tangible alternatives to clients?

    Have you ever reversed someone’s diagnosis? Fought with a colleague about how it has adversely impacted someone’s life? Of what use is “critical analysis” without these practical actions? Ultimately, as a Ph.D, you have power and you are in a role where you can use that power to truly save someone’s life.

    For example, IIRC, Szasz would engage in court cases to get people out of nut houses. Have any of you done that?

    And this is not a question I pose to you, but to all writers on MIA.

    When you say “At-risk students are encouraged to receive therapy that asks them to accept this highly stigmatising “personality disorder,” which is presented as a valid “mental illness,” into their long-term identity. , have you written a letter to the people creating and executing these programs that what they are doing will harm these kids? How does one explain to these kids or their parents the long term dangers of these programs? What about speeches uploaded to YouTube? All the writers here, can get into a large conference and upload these ideas in speech format online. There is power in numbers.

  • The most frustrating aspect is, if you explain these ideas to people in “mental health” departments, they feel accused, flustered and view you as an oddball. The more resilience you show to them and their stupid notions, the more rebellious the mental health workers also become.

    These ideas etc., they exist only on our little websites that we have made for refuge. To make any practical change, we would need a hell a lot of money and man power.

    While people like Mr. Bill Gates etc. will make billions of dollars of charitable donations to vaccine research, you will find no such donations to this cause. Part of the reason is, psychiatry and it’s associated “skeptic” movements (of which, like a fool, I considered myself to be a part of in my younger days), have done a very good job of portraying people like us as cranks.

    Like many authors, you have brought forward the disease-mongering nature of psychiatry and psychology as it exists today. But is the alternative, “psychotherapy” all that great?

    “Psychotherapy” is just as bad. It teaches people in the worst of situations that the problem and solution lie within the person themselves. When true social justice issues appear at the individual level, neither the psychiatrist nor psychologist are anywhere to be found, except in large scale issues like gay rights. When was the last time you saw a psychotherapist donating money to a man who is suicidal due to economic hardships? When was the last time we ever saw a mental health worker barging into someone’s house to stop abuse of children and getting them justice from the perpetrators? Never. They will offer them useless psychotherapy though, wasting their own time and that of other people. There are a few situations where some guidance may be helpful for a short period of time. Not more than that.

    And perhaps, the rest of us are also to blame, because the professionals who do make these sacrifices, may not even be rewarded for them. In fact, it may end up screwing them. And this is something, we all need to do something about.

    Sam Timimi for instance, does not label kids with ADHD. When you go on his articles on psychology today, you will find parents writing “I hate professionals who write these things, if only they had kids with ‘ADHD’ they would understand”. They miss the whole point. As if to give your children drugs and “therapy”, you need to label them with life long stigmatising, truth obfuscating, tautological labels which potentially could ruin them.

    Psychotherapy, especially for kids, makes them so dependent, and their families so trusting of, the words of the enlightened “psychotherapist”, that the kid will end up in an endless loop of listening and talking, lose his instincts, his self-confidence, his capacity to make independent decisions and face the consequences himself, good or bad. It will become a much longer road for them to reach their full potential in life. Frankly, I prefer the personal, responsible, voluntary and non-forced use of drugs with minimal side effects compared to that. The only thing is, one should not have to go through the mental health system to procure them. Because once you do that, all the garbage, the disease-mongering, the constant noting down of “observations” like a lab rat, the labelling, all come into play. One has to rely on the charity of the benefactor (the psychiatrist/mental health worker), to get them or even to stop them if one does not wish to take them anymore.

    Ultimately, I have learned (the hard way), that a degree is not a mere certification of specific knowledge, but a means to get into a role of power, and a role of trust that people so easily give to the mental health worker, even though he/she may be as ignorant as a sack of potatoes.

    In many cases, it’s so surprising (but not at the same time), that ordinary people, can understand issues of people so easily, that all these highly qualified, disease mongering, so called “scientifically minded” “therapists” fail to comprehend.

    If one wants to make true positive changes to the life on an individual, one has to spend time taking personal risks with no expectation of reward, except perhaps some internal satisfaction. This is simply not possible for the professional. And when a professional offers a half-baked, pseudo-solution to a problem (like those fancy terms “CBT” and crap), he simply runs the risk of making the individual even worse. It is upto people, especially those who have been through this garbage, to offer help to the coming generations, completely independent of the mental health system and any worker that is associated with it. Naturally, this will have risks to be taken into account too.

    “Therapists teach their clients “coping skills” for reducing “symptoms” with the goal of achieving good “mental health.” Within this approach, the paragon of psychological health is a person with no negative internal experiences. Personally, I find it difficult to imagine that such a person could exist. If such a person did exist, I imagine that he or she would be extraordinarily sheltered, naive, and boring.”

    Which is obviously absolute crap as I have already written. Some people have lives so bad, they would be crazy to not be depressed.

    I will say one thing though. To date, I have not met a mental health worker that is “bad”, in the sense that they enjoy the suffering of their clients. Sure there are a few douches, but not generally. I have met some incredibly mentally dull ones (who you can make out, got into med school because of discipline and work ethic and not due as much intellect as others), and some really smart ones. But what I have noticed among many is, they don’t realise the full consequences of what they are doing. I am yet to meet a non-labelling, “antipsychiatry” psychiatrist in my country.

    But that does not matter in the least. The entire mental health community, is in a way, psychotic. Much like some of the people that come to them, they lack insight. Insight into the fact that they are, as a whole, a sickness to society despite their most positive and best intentions. And this psychosis is something that they have spread to the public at large like a contagious infection.

    But this is also a double-edged sword. The rebellious mental health workers who realise all this, probably find it hard to break through the professional barriers imposed on them by their colleagues, the law, and a totally psychiatrically indoctrinated and brain-washed society, who will defend conventional psychiatry to their own peril.

    If a “therapist” does not provide, “evidence-based standard of care”, and turns his client away by saying “your problems cannot be helped in the least by the mental health profession”, and that individual commits suicide, the mental health worker will be sued. He will face professional and public disgrace. This is also a problem.

    Unless, a suicide is caused by prescription drugs, the risks of which were not made aware of by the prescriber, if you kill yourself, the responsibility lies with you (unless the suicide was caused due to someone else’s actions). There are so many kids that commit suicide in my country, because they do not get into their favourite college, don’t get 90% marks in their exams, or are dumped by their lover. Stupid people. Perhaps they are better off removed from the gene pool.

  • “I have been both threatened and assaulted by such individuals on psych wards”

    Yes. This indeed does happen sometimes.

    However, in each case, it is important to know why the person is being violent. In one case, the person truly could be psychotic. In another case, something may have happened to the person to make them behave that way. Both cases are irrespective of the garbage they were labelled with.

  • “The purpose of this study was twofold; first, to examine whether being married at baseline is linked with survival status at 14-years, and second, to identify correlates of marriage status. To do this, the data of 510 individuals identified as having schizophrenia was extracted from a longitudinal study on mental illness and mental health services in a rural county of China. Participants were assessed at baseline, 10-years, and 14-years.

    Along with the key outcome variable of marital status, data on symptoms, level of social disability, functioning and survival were collected. Survival was classified as being alive and living in the community. Other variables gathered included sex, age, educational attainment, first onset of psychosis, duration of illness, suicidal attempt, whether or not the individual was taking psychiatric medication, mental health status (full remission, partial remission, or marked symptoms/deteriorated), family members, family economic status, caregiver status, maltreatment of participants by family members, and criminal behavior.”

    Psychiatric gibberish. Until we meet these 510 people, we have no idea what their lives were/are like.
    Not to mention defaming these individuals with a “diagnosis” of “schizophrenia”.

    “The positive effects of social support and inclusion have been documented extensively”

    Right, because the common fact that having supportive people in life benefits a person is something to be “discovered” and “studied” and “documented”.

    Not to mention that they have successfully added to social isolation by defaming these individuals as “schizophrenics”.

    “The purpose of this study was twofold”

    Only one purpose I think. It adds a feather in the cap of the researcher doing the research work. Another publication in a journal, and more advancement in career.

  • You are not wrong Dr. Kelmenson. If people want “therapy” or their choice of drugs to cope with their problems, be it illicit or prescription (legal), provided that they have all the information required and the doctor has told them all the possible occurrences (and even mentioned the fact that the drug may have some unknown effect in the individual), then the responsibility should, and does lie with the person opting for the treatment. They should then, not sue the doctor handing them the treatment they want, even if it results in death or suicide (since those matters have already been communicated). With freedom, comes responsibility.

    However, in real life, people have absolutely no idea what they are getting themselves into. They have no idea about the effects of the drugs, the social and legal consequences of labelling, that they will even be labelled for the side effects or drugs (like “bipolar” due to antidepressant induced mania) etc. This is what is appalling. In some cases, they are ridiculed into believing the “scientific nature” of psychiatry by people in the profession itself.

  • Ah…but that is the thing Someone Else. I do not discount your experiences or your pain. But when once repeats the same thing over and over again a million times, people only label them as cranks who cannot let go. From there comes the notion that they are “ill” or “nuts” or they “need help” etc. It defames the whole group.

    I know this, because like you, I have endured pain, and injustice, and terror and gaslighting, and in my moments of fury and rage, I say “the same thing over and over again” because there has never been any justice that has crossed my way.

    You have mentioned “Anticholinergic Toxidrome” enough times to last a lifetime. You have also mentioned “fad, fraud DSM, pharma” a hundred times.

    I only wish that you find some peace within yourself, and use your considerable intelligence to move away from that and onto something more constructive.

    BTW, I make no pretenses, because I am quite destroyed as well. It is, in some sense, like the pot calling the kettle black.

    But I hope you understand what I mean.

  • Mr. Henry Bauer,

    Wikipedia describes you as “HH Bauer is the author of several books and articles on fringe science, arguing in favor of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster and against Immanuel Velikovsky, and is an AIDS denialist”.

    Many blogs and websites of people who term themselves as skeptics or science-writers will not give you any space on their websites to write anything as they will dismiss everything you say based on the fact that you deny that HIV causes AIDS. Mad In America will also be defamed for giving you space to write anything. That is expected. Guilt by association tactics will be used to cast this website away. You would be hard pressed to find people here (including myself) who deny that HIV causes AIDS. Hell, even Robert Whitaker has been compared to AIDS denialists in the past for criticising psychiatry. Thomas Szasz is still defamed as a Scientologist, even though he was an atheist.

    However, naturally that does not mean everything you say is false, and perhaps some interesting insights can be gained from a “fringe science writer”. Just wanted to put that out there.

  • I find this business of making kids who come from “high risk backgrounds” be “made better at sustaining attention, delaying gratification, and following rules—to help them think and act more like children and youth from low-risk backgrounds” nauseating.

    It’s ludicrous. In other words, this system will do nothing to destroy the people who put them in those high-risk situations in the first place. It will not get these kids justice. In fact, by labelling them, it will provide the creators of those “high-risk” backgrounds even more impetus to gaslight these kids.

    Not to mention, it will trap these kids in an endless loop of therapy, which will do nothing for those kids, except destroy them further whilst allowing those therapists to happily bolster their therapy and research career.

    And this is what happens in psychiatry all the time. It is effectively, “excusing the guilty and accusing the innocent”.

    How much longer will this happen?

  • So much stress is laid on poverty. Not that it is not an important thing, and I’m not trying to disrespect the struggle of those with lesser means (hell it seems I am moving that way too).

    What about kids who come from middle class, upper middle class, and hell even upper class families in terms of socio-economic status, but grow up in high stress, highly abusive situations created by highly abusive parenting and dysfunctional family dynamics? Crazy psychopathic fathers/mothers, scapegoating spouses etc. The same thing happens to those kids. Constantly living in fight or flight mode.

    At least, people have some charitable understanding towards the poor.

    But, if you come from a modicum of wealth, not only do you get screwed over, but after being screwed over, you get doubly screwed over because you come from “privilege”, and people would easily label you a rich kid and disregard what you have been through.

    And keep in mind, these aren’t “rich kids”. They’re kids of rich parents or families.

  • Though “beating down psychiatrists’ doors” is bit of a literary exaggeration, it’s both. That is, both desperation/lack of options, and some portion find it helpful, and other cases where the dynamics are different. Varies from person to person.

    But mostly, that people do not know what they are getting into, and once into it, do not know how to undo some of the consequences.

    Being well-informed is important. It’s usually worse when the people who go there are young people, who still do not have power in their hands and can easily be overridden.

  • This is a very good reason to stay away from large institutions like John Hopkins or their equivalents anywhere in the world. With their overly biological garbage, and the subsequent fear-mongering, coercion (which can range from subtle to extreme) and all the other psychiatric protocols that come with it, one can never realise their full potential as a human being.

    1.) As mentioned, family dynamics plays a role. Once a single person in the family is labelled with any DSM label, the corresponding protocols of biology based views will filter down environmentally to other members of the family, because those initially labelled members will become a “family history” to them.

    2.) They are labelling people as manic depressives due to mania caused by psychiatric drugs like SSRIs and Ritalin. Once one member X is labelled bipolar this way, another member Y who is one generation down, to whom X may be a second degree relative will also be labelled similarly if they respond similarly to psychiatric drugs. Here, the actual correlation may not be “bipolar”, but just a disposition to experiencing mania due to those specific drugs.

    In cases where X and Y have totally different psychiatrists, the psychiatrist of Y will not even know that X was labelled bipolar due to drug induced mania, but will simply count the label of X as a family history of Y.

    3.) “Bipolar” is a descriptive behavioral label indicating a person has experienced two mood states with no explanation of etiology (unlike single gene disorders). Being a criminal or a doctor is as genetic as anything else in the DSM.

    4.) If a person has a disposition to depression, he may have a counteractive disposition to other things which positively counteract it. Unfortunately, getting labelled would inevitably result in a supression of the positives and an excessive focus on the negatives.

    5.) Once a person is labelled bipolar for any reason, all adverse events in life will simply be “factors in the course of the illness”, and nothing in and of themselves (as prime factors in the life of the person). The person will subsequently experience mistreatment which would end up becoming a self-fulfilling prohecy, thereby adding credence to the initial diagnosis of “illness” , and also subsequent diagnoses to other family members.

    Genetics can’t account for many of these things. Best to stay away from these Johns Hopkins types. All that will happen to people with these guys is that they’d be prevented from ever reaching their full potential. Even if, in some individuals, genetics was a modest causal factor, it would still be imprudent to have to do anything with these people due to point 4.

    If someone is really desperate for pills, they may rather go to someone in private practice.

  • “I think this viewpoint comes from spending too much time around critics and victims of psychiatry – such as on this website. In the real world psychiatry is booming; its willing customers are everywhere. However please keep up the good fight.”– Sally

    Sally makes a very good point, and I think it is very true that many people who post here are in a state of self-assurance by staying in a comfortable environment with agreeing voices. The world is larger than that.

    People here completely fail to ignore that there are large swathes of people, internet forums, blogs etc…all dedicated to their liking of psychiatry. And most people here are not equipped to make any cohesive arguments against those people with their little arsenal of half-baked Szasz quotes, and the same old “there are no tests, scans” arguments.

    One can never abolish psychiatry for how can you abolish something which a fair share of people like and find useful? One can only educate others of the dangers of it, and perhaps in their own lives, seek some remedies for what happened to them. The choice of getting into psychiatry is to be left to the individual.

    Now, where I disagree with is, “psychiatry is booming”. Yes, it is booming in the sense that helpless and desperate people (which are large in number) seeking any source of refuge in times of need go to psychiatry out of a lack of options without knowing what they are getting into. Society also tells them that this is the right way.

    What does need to happen is that people need to have full knowledge of the dangers of stepping foot into psychiatry. For without that knowledge, many of them will simply end up on here again. Not now. Maybe not next year. But 10 years, 15 years down the line….some of those “willing customers” will realise the same follies that countless others realised before them, when they were “willing customers” too…

    Perhaps even some psychiatrists will change after the pressure of these places catches up to them, and then act like these occurrences never happened and were just some “bad experiences” of a few people.

    The numbers in this place too are steadily booming.

  • SF,
    Whatever one’s opinions may be, telling someone “get rid of the shrink, get off the drugs (I don’t think you need them)” is simply a bad idea. That is a choice the person must make for themselves. Do you want yourself, or the creators and maintainers of this website, to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit? What if such advice causes something horrible? It will destroy this place.

  • @mepat:

    Many of the psychiatrists I have come across…they weren’t “evil” like the devil. Just that they simply did not fully understand the consequences of what they were doing and of their profession.

    The problems with psychiatry do not start and end with drugs. There are socio-legal consequences, obfuscating truths using labels, misguided statistics being published, disease-mongering, injustice towards abuse victims etc.

    To take drugs or not is your choice.

    The fact that you found a human being in the position of psychiatrist who has allowed you to see whether tapering off of drugs is good for you or not is great. Many would not afford that privilege to their patients.

    There was a time, not too long ago, that I found a “wonderful” psychiatrist too. But it took me some time to realise, that their niceness does not matter. They are not your friends (trust me, even your own psychiatrist will change colours when the need arises). They are bound by one and only one adage. “Do no harm to oneself or to others”. And they will follow that (even if they do harm in the process) irrespective of whether they are being nice to you or not.

    Also, not for a moment am I going to place myself in a position of moral superiority to the psychiatrist. I know that I, or in fact anyone else on this site, would pretty much do what they do if I were in their position, and if I did not have the experiences I have had. But I (we) am not in their position. And they (the psychiatrists) are not in our position.

    And thus, the snakes and the mongooses will do battle.

    P.S. My reply was to your original comment (about how your Dr. looks like Liz Phair etc.) before you edited it.

  • I don’t weigh in much on the abolition issue. There are more practical things than that.

    However, even if they did abolish it, why would that prevent you from getting whatever drugs you want? If anything, it would prevent it from being forced down your throat.

    The “wonderfulness” of your doctor doesn’t mean much. Their intentions and niceness does not factor into the consequences of what they do (which may have been good for you). While your doctor may have been nice to you, it is not necessary that she has not caused harm to other people by the nature of what she does.

    With regards to the specific advice about going to a store for sex toys, anyone could have given you that advice. That MD in Psych is irrelevant to give that advice.

    Your psychiatrist does not need to be a psychiatrist for you to love her.

    There are many things that people should know about psychiatry before they ever step into it.

  • Well, if you say “mental illness” does not exist, they will say “fine, we will not use the term ‘mental illness’, we will use the term brain disorder”, for which there will again be protests. Then they will say “these antipsychiatry people are incorrigible and senseless. What about the man who believes there’s an alien implant in his skull and he’s trying to pull it out? What do you call that? How do you help him?”.

  • Oldhead,

    I know you are very militant about this and I completely understand your position. Only that it will never work except in loud proclamations on MIA.

    The public will NEVER accept that there is no such thing as mental illness. They will laugh in your face, and show you the “schizophrenic” that thinks that aliens are communicating to him via radio waves.

    Try these arguments on the sites of people like Steven Novella. You will be shot down immediately.

    I know you will respond in a militant manner to me again, and be harsh. But I’m just the messenger.

    P.S. Does anyone know what happened to Ted Chabasinski? He used to write here. Is he alive?

  • Let us see them do this in clinical practice. This brain imaging crap is brought on here all too often. If any psychiatric label is such a discrete entity, let us see them do this imaging in clinical practice for diagnosis and discard checklists of all sorts.

    Also, please explain why long timers in psychiatry end up having up to 10 labels. For example, why one single person has the following labels:”schizophrenia, borderline personality, OCD, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, panic disorder, ADHD”. What does the brain of the “10-label disorder” person look like?

    Since there is no mind without a brain, even “Internet Gaming Disorder” (which is also a real label describing a real problem) will have neural correlates. So what?

    It sounds so smart and scientific, this “neurological imaging research”. It is worthless information in the setting of real life, and a simple conman tactic that obfuscates the truth of real-life clinical psychiatry and is something used by psychiatrists to give credence to their views and authority in real life, even though they will never check a person’s brain for anything.

    It would be just as truthful if they said, “look, you have a brain, which is why you have thoughts, and if you don’t like your thoughts, here’s a drug which may help you”

    P.S. I’m responding to the comment, and have nothing to say about the article.

  • @Momof:

    People of all kinds write here. But I think, one generally accepts that the behaviours associated with all psychiatric labels, be it ADHD or Internet Gaming Disorder, or schizophrenia are very real. And they could be problematic to the person with those behaviours or their care-takers.

    Many of us who post here have been severely negatively impacted by the labels we were labelled with. Some of us were even labelled with disorders for side effects of drugs we were prescribed. We have had labels used to abuse us and gaslight us and to obfuscate our truths. So, keep that in mind.

    One empathises with your situation and I will give you the benefit of doubt and assume that you are indeed a good mother.

    Just one thing. You mention the feeling of it being a “lifeline” when you “found out” that your child “had ADHD”. I felt the same way when I received my first label when I was 16. It was many years down the line that I realised that nothing came to me from it, and not only did it not explain any behaviour, but by rewording and quasi-medicalising my behaviour, it created even more severe problems and made me susceptible to even more labelling.

    Yes, this is my experience and also the experience of some others here. I won’t generalise it.

    But, if indeed your daughter is happy with whatever her treatment is, and life is better, why not? But it remains to be seen what she will feel like, 10 years down the line, 15 years down the line….

  • Please don’t refer to your kid as an ADHDSuperstar. Wouldn’t calling him a superstar be enough? Anyway, that’s up to the kid. Is he okay with being referred to that way? Even if he is, not all are, because such labels obfuscate truths about people.

    Why even bring up the notion of “my ADHD child”. The simple truth is, that this is (supposedly) a kid who has difficulty being focused. And you say drugs help him. While, it would be a lot better to hear from the kid himself, I will assume that what you are saying is true. So the truth of the matter is “my child is a whirlwind, unfocused and drugs help him be focused”. Period. The term ADHD is pointless to describe this simple truth.

    “then that is between the parent, the child and the doctor!”

    Actually, it is not, since it is the kid that is being labelled and taking drugs. It’s solely up to how the kid feels about it. But of course, if the kid is very young, I can understand.

    “No parent of a child with ADHD is trying to control them…NONE”

    Don’t be too sure of that. Psychiatric labels of all kinds have been used by abusive parents to perpetrate further abuses on children, cover up their own mental problems/abusive nature and invalidate their kids’ protests and pleas for help since time immemorial. This place is replete with such cases.

    Take up a few legal cases in psychiatry and you will understand it better.

    You may not be such a parent. But don’t generalise it.

  • You say it is a heterogeneous problem, but at the same time you also say it is discrete and specific. Which is it?

    You’re right, the labels aren’t useless. They have great use in truth obfuscation and making already vulnerable people doubly endangered (which is not, in some eyes, their intended use, but those intentions don’t matter at all).

    Doesn’t matter if the labelling is rapid or done over 20 years. Once done, and once a person has 10 labels, he is left with little standing as a person.

    If only we could put psychiatrists on the other end of
    the same practices.

    “You can’t do a scan in an individual to come up with a specific label because the labels are based on clusters of behaviours. So a syndrome like ADHD is always going to be heterogenous and there will be great variations between individuals.”

    Which is also my point. It is a rewording of behaviour.

    “finding neural correlates is important and helpful as it allows us to tailor interventions down to specific rehab exercises”

    Interesting. Tell me a few rehab exercises which have been based on scans in clinical practice.

  • I’m sure that a significant group of the kids who experienced many adverse childhood events would be classifiable as having ADHD if they were fully assessed.

    And what will then happen? The people who caused those adverse events will use the label to claim that the “adverse events” and the kid’s agitation are due to a brain disorder in the kid. It happens all the time. This site is replete with those cases. And neither psychiatry/psychiatrists, nor the law will be able to truly help those kids from being re-abused (but will, in fact, unintentionally retraumatise the individual).

    “Having” “ADHD”, “having” “bipolar disorder” is just a quasi-medical rewording of things like not being able to focus, being depressed etc.

    It is simpler and more importantly, truer, to avoid truth-obfuscating labels and call things what they are.

    “I remember a paediatrician commenting that an ADHD diagnosis should be the start of investigation- not the end.”

    And how will that help, when the label screws over the kid and makes him susceptible to even more labelling?

    As I have already said (your notions on rehab and little use of medication are another thing), everyday, many of those kids are being prescribed stimulants (which if the kid benefits from, is fine), which in a subset of kids will cause mania, which will be used as “proof” of a “latent bipolar disorder”. The “start” of the investigation will be ADHD, and the end will be “co-morbid ADHD and bipolar disorder”.

  • They have been labelling people with “bipolar disorder” due to SSRI/Ritalin induced mania for quite sometime now, even though such episodes would never likely have occurred without the drugs in the first place.

    The comparisons to diabetes miss out key points.. You cannot be harassed or abused into getting diabetes. However, I could lock you up in a room and torture you to the point that you exhibit all the features of a “paranoid schizophrenic”.

    Also, labelling a person as a diabetic will not influence the diabetes itself. Labelling a person with a DSM label will influence the person’s mental state in various ways, in terms of self-image and how people treat them as well, thereby becoming a causal factor in the behaviours that compile the very label itself (which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy)

    Behavioural labels, in theory, are far more susceptible to creation than non-psychiatric labels, because there is a massive set of behaviours someone may want to pathologise.

    At the level of family, it may be a spouse accusing their significant other of being insane, and at the global level, it may be coming up with treatments for “Internet Gaming Disorder”, all of which will have neural correlates because there is no mind without a brain.

  • “While I maintain that mental illnesses do not exist, I obviously do not imply or mean that the social and psychological occurrences to which this label is attached do not exist.

    Like the personal and social troubles that people had in the Middle Ages, contemporary human problems are real enough. It is the labels we give them that concern me, and, having labelled them, what we do about them.

    The demonological concept of problems in living gave rise to therapy along theological lines. Today,
    a belief in mental illness implies – nay, requires – therapy along medical or psychotherapeutic lines.”

  • @Feelin:

    Not an uncommon story. I too have endured massive harassment and gaslighting from an abusive father (a surgeon) because of being psychiatrically labelled.

    He harasses me to the point that it disturbs my mental equilibrium and then uses my agitation as proof of “mental illness”.

    The funny thing is, the man himself is a total psychopath, criminally and morally insane, and someone who should be locked up, but he gets away with it because he is a surgeon. You could make out his aberrant behaviours and his psychopathic (and slightly psychotic) nature if you heard some of the recordings I have (which are in a language which you will not understand).

    I have spent the last 10 years running around from place to place to escape him, and am also seeking some legal counsel. I cannot even adequately represent myself in a court of law because of this “psychiatric history”, a lot of which was created by abuse.

    I was also labelled bipolar because SSRIs prescribed for depression and anxiety caused mania (something which would never have happened without the drugs). The label is also something the man conveniently uses against me.

    I have recordings, photographs, so much evidence against him, and it is STILL difficult to get justice. I am hoping something good will come my way soon. Laypeople and even most lawyers cannot understand the depths of psychiatry very well, and such cases require specialised lawyers.

    The person who should have been on the end of “treatment” never received it, but I sure did. And this is happening over and over again, the world over.

  • @The_cat, Fiachra: I do not understand why some people on this website quote the same old crap that the opposition will expect and easily counter?

    I mean if you want to quote Szasz, there is much better stuff to quote instead of that line which people will not understand in the context that it is implied in. Most people who quote Szasz haven’t even read him, it seems. For example:

    “We can influence others in two radically different ways-with the sword or the pen, the stick or the carrot. Coercion is the threat or use of force to compel the other’s submission. If it is legally authorized, we call it “law enforcement”; if it is not, we call it “crime.” Shunning coercion,we can employ verbal, sexual, financial, and other enticements to secure the other’s cooperation. We call these modes of influence by a variety of names, such as advertising, persuasion, psychotherapy, treatment, brainwashing, seduction, payment for services, and so forth.

    We assume that people influence others to improve their own lives.The self-interest of the person who coerces is manifest: He compels the other to do his bidding. The self-interest of the person who eschews coercion is more subtle: Albeit the merchant’s business is to satisfy his customers’ needs, his basic motivation, as Adam Smith acknowledged, is still self-interest.

    Nevertheless, people often claim that they are coercing the other to satisfy his needs. Parents, priests, politicians, and psychiatrists typically assume this paternalistic posture vis-a-vis their beneficiaries. As the term implies, the prototype of avowedly altruistic domination-coercion is the relationship between parent and young child. Acknowledging that parents must sometimes use force to control and protect their children, and that the use of such force is therefore morally justified, does not compel us to believe that parents act this way solely in the best interest of their children. In the first place, they might be satisfying their own needs (as well). Or the interests of parent and child may be so intertwined that the distinction is irrelevant. Indeed, ideally the child’s dependence on his parents, and the parents’ attachment to him, mesh so well that their interests largely coincide. If the child suffers, the parents suffer by proxy. However, if the child misbehaves, he may enjoy his rebellion, whereas the parents are likely to be angered and embarrassed by it. Thus, what appears to be the parents’ altruistic behavior must, in part, be based on self-interest.”

    “Oh, there is no test or scan” blah blah. Yes, that makes a difference. But not in the way people here write.

    If you have a fever, there is no “test” except the fact that you put a thermometer in your mouth and measure your temperature, and then take Tylenol if you are too hot. You will not wait till you find out which infection is causing the fever in every case.

    Similarly, if a man is psychotic or delusional and believes that aliens are communicating with him through radio waves, that behaviour itself (analogous to your body being too hot itself) will make most people want him to take drugs.

    If you want to argue, at least do it more sensibly, because all it does is give this site a shitty rep and make it totally vulnerable with same old “no test” crap.

    “Mental illness” is a truth-obfuscating term. There are plainer and truer words to describe people’s behaviour.

  • Of course, the ADHD label is real and the behaviours that it encompasses like not being attentive etc. are real.

    “I am saying that the ADHD label is a real label describing a discrete problem, that does have distinct features that can be linked to particular areas of the brain.”

    Then why can a psychiatrist not do a brain scan in a specific individual (not statistical studies) in clinical practice to prove this so-called “discrete” problem. After all, if it is so discrete (like a hematoma in the brain), one does not need checklists. Do a scan, end of story.

    There are long timers in psychiatry who end up with 10 labels. For example, one individual will have the labels of “schizophrenia, borderline personality, OCD, bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, panic disorder, ADHD” etc.

    These individuals have all these “discrete problems” in one brain?

    Since there is no mind without a brain, even “Internet Gaming Disorder” (which is also a real label describing a real problem) will have neural correlates. So what?

  • Barliman,

    This is a seemingly neatly and rationally written comment.

    But let us cut out the mental masturbation for a moment.

    You have written “My ADHD was diagnosed 9 years ago”

    How does one get an ADHD label? Let us see some criteria from the Vanderbilt’s scale:

    a.)Has difficulty keeping attention on what needs to be done
    b.)Does not listen when spoken to directly
    c.)Has difficulty organising tasks and activities
    d.)Is forgetful in daily activities

    And so on, the list goes on.

    Practically by “my ADHD was found x years ago”, you mean you had difficulty doing some of these tasks and taking drugs called stimulants helps you.

    “I have X behaviours which I find distressing and taking Y drugs helps me” is all it ultimately boils down to in practicality (it is your choice to use drugs in a responsible manner which benefits you and no one should stop you from doing so). There is no need for the “sub-cortical this and that” and yada yada.

    Fine, that’s great. Take what you want to and move on with life. No one here has a problem with it.

    Telling people that they have broken brains and labelling them for a set of behaviours (which will cause other problems further on), and then telling them that they need to be on drugs for the rest of their life for a set of behaviours in that specific individual is massively dangerous. Not to mention, if those drugs cause side effects (for example mania caused by stimulants) they will be re-labelled with another label like “bipolar disorder” (if the drug indeed does cause mania) and the person will then be someone who has “comorbid ADHD and bipolar disorder”. What then? Next will be imaging for co-morbid “conditions”?

    There is too much of “brain brain brain” crap everywhere in psychiatry, which in practice does nothing except imbibe a scientistic view of thinking of everything through the prism of “malfunctioning brain” in people who are so labelled (and also taking away power from their hands with regards to their own lives). And the broken brain messages being pumped into the media make things worse.

    In practice, psychiatry is never going to check anyone’s brain for anything.It is nothing more than truth-obfuscation at its finest of what practical psychiatry is like.

    The end all and be all is finally “I feel like X1 which is hampering my performance and I want to feel like X2. Taking drug Y may help me go from X1 to X2”.

  • Dr. Hickey,

    Completely unrelated to this article, I wish to ask you:

    1.) You are so old now, that your loss will soon be inevitable. This would be a loss for many of us. Do you have youngsters who have been trained in your school of thought?

    2.) What do you think of the increasing support of pro-psychiatry in the “skeptic’s movement” and how the resistance of psychiatric BS is slowly being pushed into the same corner as the belief in tooth fairies?

  • LOL. “FFS” was not the spammer. By FFS, I meant “For f’s sake”. The spammer was a user by the name of SomeoneElse, who consistently writes “DSM, fad, fraud”, “scientifically invalid”, “anticholinergic toxidrome” in every goddamn comment.

  • You will quote the kind of data and stats in this article. People on the pro-psychiatry side (check out some of these “skeptic” “science” blogs) will “debunk” this data, quote their own data and hammer into people’s heads that “psychiatry is a scientific field”, “psychiatrists are medical doctors and experts” (because they underwent medical training prior to psychiatry), “DSM labels are medical diagnoses” (even if a some of the stuff that goes on in those places has nothing to do with medicine or science at all, and even whatever does seem like medicine and science, are things which, the consequences of, one can only realise when it is too late and they are neck deep in it, with a barrage of labels, drugs, and their identities altered forever).

    There are some things you can only learn from practical experience and not even if you read all the published journal papers in psychiatry and know the most advanced stats in the world.

    To me, all this data and these words (“science”, “medicine”) associated with psychiatry have become simple argumentation tactics between the pro and anti psychiatry sides. There are very few people doing actual groundwork, but many endlessly debating “data, data, data” and whether or not “psychiatry is a science”. This “data” game is a never ending game. And who cares about the words in the end? It’s the consequences on the lives of individuals that matters.

    There are plenty of these men with knowledge of stats, but with dilettante knowledge of googling things, going through journal papers and crunching numbers who write blogs, post comments etc.; and then other men (even psychiatrists) who take part in these Cochrane Collaboration dramas, who will improve their own research profiles, but never do a practical thing in their lives to truly help someone.

    Are these people going to rescue kids from abusive homes? Prevent gaslighting of individuals? Fight legal cases on behalf of people who have been screwed over by DSM labels? No. It would put their lives and careers in jeopardy.

    People are much more concerned about what happens to individuals in real life practice in those places, and these things you can only find out from the real life practical experiences of people. Such experiences can be substantiated in a legal sense too, in terms of audio-visual recordings, documentation etc.

  • The biological argument and “family history” argument is also frequently used to abuse people.

    In my life, I, since childhood (and even now) was constantly held to be insane and gaslighted by my horribly abusive biological father (who is also a surgeon, and who also uses his medical credentials to give authority to his arguments), because of this “family history of aunt” (the truth of which he knows nothing about).

    For the longest time, I internalised the biological argument, even being very pro-psychiatry at a point in time, talking about “X&Y brain structures being involved in depression, obsessional thoughts”, “neurotransmitter abnormalities”, yada yada. The Charlie Rose Brain Series, medical lectures on psychiatry…seen a lot of it.

    The biological argument and family history has also been used to invalidate the abuse meted out to me, because it can easily be covered up with “this boy is behaving this way because he has bad genes”. This was done more directly by my father (with ill-intentions), and less directly by psychiatry (with good intentions).

    PS: In my earlier comment, it was kindred’s post I agreed with, not FD’s. It was a reading error on my part. Also in the part where I write “Much like FeelinDiscouraged…”, I actually mean kindred not FD.

  • LaurenAnderson,

    FeelinDiscouraged had sort of used my question as ammo for his/her own statement, which it was not meant to be (however, I agree with FD’s latest post).

    Since you said you have a gene for depression, I asked you outright to name what the gene is.

    You have mentioned the genetic basis of mental illness. Leaving aside the semantics of “‘mental illness’ does not exist” (however I would say that “mental illness” is a horribly truth obfuscating term), I would presume that by mental illness, you are talking of a human being as experiencing one or more of the following: depression, anxiety, delusions, mania etc. These are more straightforward terms than “mental illness”.

    From your later posts, I can presume that you have no particular gene for depression but that you think it has a genetic basis because many people in your family have been depressed at some point.

    I (like 99.9% of people on this planet) have the genes required to feel physical pain. But I do not experience it for no reason. I experience it if I am hurt, if someone hits me, if I stub a toe, put my fingers on a burning hot cup of coffee etc.

    Since human beings are biological creatures, everything we feel or do has some trivial relation to our genes because we would not exist without genes. But that is irrelevant in real life psychiatric practice. No psychiatrist or mental health worker will ever do genetic tests or a brain scan in real life practice, which in anyway will be useful to a patient.

    You will find opposition for the “genetic basis of mental illness” here because that notion is commonly used for disease mongering, coercion, infantilisation etc. despite having no testable proof in a specific individual except “family history”. However, “depression” (or DSM labels like “bipolar disorder” etc) is not a family history. A family history is a family history. That is, the descriptive life of the people in your family and the reasons for why people in your family felt depressed. We do not know the reasons why or what happened to them, except your statement that they were so. If you wish to talk of the biological basis for depression, we may as well speak of the biological basis of laughing, crying, eating, pooping etc. So, it is rather pointless to even go there.

    Also, family histories can be altered by psychiatric drugs themselves. There was never any history in my maternal family of “bipolar disorder” until that diagnosis was iatrogenically created in my aunt, when SSRIs which were prescribed to her for depression, caused mania.

    One is more concerned with the reality of everyday practice than the mental masturbation of hypotheses and the usual nature-nurture argument.

    And much like, FeelinDiscouraged has pointed out, I too relate to the scientistic thinking of my younger days, of constantly thinking of my thoughts and feelings through the prism of biology (something which psychiatric disease-mongering and also the pro-psychiatry sites on the internet foster). That crap just prevents a person from ever reaching their full potential, on the basis of poor evidence in that specific individual.

  • Congrats on your first article on MIA and your much needed community service in India.

    India lacks any critical examination of the judgements of psychiatrists, the effects of psychiatric drugs, the socio-legal and medical implications of DSM labelling (and the disease-mongering, gaslighting and obfuscation of truths which may come with it), and given the widespread ignorance related to matters of psychiatry, and the practically unquestioned authority of the medical (wo)man, this would undoubtedly be at the peril (in the long term, if not the short term) of at least a subset of the millions of people that end up, desperate and helpless, in their offices every year.

  • Okay, I have had to delete my comment due to spam from a member of this site.

    FFS, please do not spam the man’s YouTube channel with ranty stuff calling him names. Keep the comment section clean. All it does is give this site a horrible rep.

    And don’t do the same “scientifically invalid” crap, especially on YouTube where people will simply not be able to understand where you are coming from and will throw you in the same bucket as Flat Earthers.