Showing 40 of 40 comments.
Proof that its all about turf.
I am wary of the tempting romantization of ‘psychosis’. Making it akin to mystic ‘insight’ is dangerous.
It may not be impossible, but it detracts from the dangerousness (for the sufferer) and the seriousness of the state.
I dont think most ‘psychotic’ phases can be helped by religious/esoteric means.
Having said that, I never cease to be amazed by the morbidity of the ‘medical’ grave model:
If all you can come up with is declaring the case an eternal ‘deformity’ as the author puts it, for which there is nothing to do but prepare for a life of doom and take neurotoxins, then maybe its time to put your coat off and do something else for a living.
Psychiatrists live in an alternate reality whose delusional character is quite dizzying.
Not as much as its monumental destructive character though.
Look at those dirty words just above: ‘mental disorders should be treated’.
You dont ‘treat’ people. You listen, welcome, try to understand, accompany, etc human beings.
Psychiatry will always be a problem as long as it will rest on people purporting to ‘treat’ other people.
This is just not how you ‘treat’ human beings.
It reminds me of this sentence from james davies: “So much in psychiatry has to do with who has the power”.
We are right in it.
I know that I repeat myself but I dont understand this obsession with finding the right model.
It looks like to me that this is a need from the provider which is manufacturated by his perception of status, rather than the embracing of reality. In other words, a delusion.
Yes thats it. All this fuss about the right ‘model’, which unavoidably implies that there are ‘right’ people dangerously veers on the side of the egotic delusion.
It looks like some people are trying to flesh out their power and flex those muscles.
This is a scary pitfall for me.
One does not need to go from the ‘right’ model (that is to say the ‘right’ muscles), but simply to go from the person.
Systemic approaches are doomed to failure. They will tend to support systems and powers rather than people.
We just need to focus on people. Why is it so complicated?
There seems to be this blindness lurking around, as if a lot of people cant relinquish the holy model.
There must be several reasons for that, but I quite dont like this need from providers to polishing their delusional power.
All of this consensual thinking is very nice, if not a bit vapid.
The problem is that there is no proof at this day that neurology and genetic is involved (in a causal way) in mental/emotional suffering.
Ergo, there is no place for psychiatrists in the care of those suffering.
Is not it incredible that this class of “carers” is accepted and even put in a dominant position, when they have not YET DEMONSTRATED THEIR LEGITIMACY.
Why not include plumbers or economists at this rate?
More holistic is nice, but its just another model, that is to say another subsuming of people in the abstract cake of people who are dangerously interested in epistemic aesthetics, rather than the wholesome and muddy battlefield of people souls.
Do we really need a model?
A model is just a set of boundary. It limits and humans are to prone to make models artefacts of power.
This is something that must be repeated in MIA.
The ‘critical psychiatry’ implies that there is a system somewhat elaborate enough to be warranted criticisms and benevolent enough to be corrected instead of being simply uprooted.
The blunt truth is that psychiatry, for all its existence, never ceased to be a crude and ignorant crook that people enabled because of the various illusions and benefits they get from it.
Its not a modern and flawed cathedral, and never ceased to be a grotesque hut of horrors.
It is sad and even scandalous that so many ‘critics’ make it, willingly or not, more respectable that it is.
Psychiatry, at its core paradigm and effect, is just a turd.
On a side not, this article sadly missed the opportunities of citing drugs as a category. There is no advance since the early XX century barbiturates, or even opium.
Thats the proportion of the turd.
This is something i never understand: The operating of ‘scientific endeavour’ on a religious mode:
Is not science the great explorer indifferent to preconceived belief?
Is there any science that can be truly trusted nowadays?
And where are the true sincere researchers?
This is getting seriously hilarious/surreal.
Imagine pupils collaborating with teachers for their marks or football players collaborating with the referee for the score.
I just have one question: Where the fuck is the police?
The problem with psychiatry/psychology is that so much boils down to crappy projections of entitled people which serve them to accomodate the reality to their needs (the crazy people versus the healthy people is such a comfortable bullshit).
Vulnerable people become the ultimate defenseless scape goat onto which people in power reject murky and childish salf hatred.
This system is a maddening machine of power with a problem with humanity.
If only we chose to embrace ourselves and others fully, things woud start to head for the better.
Yes but I tend to think that humans are unable to do that.
A ‘framework’ always have a policy that ends up being a police, and supporters and priests who end up invested in a dogma, at the expense of people in need.
I think an alternative can be useful, but it is too risky and it is simply not needed.
We just have to focus on people, in my opinion.
1. Schizophrenia does not exist
2. ‘mad’ behaviour is not senseless. It is often a way to saveguard meaning in front of mad circumstances
3. We dont need a theory of madness.
The problem with psychiatry is that people feel entitled to formulate ‘theories’ and end up defending their ego and status-invested system rather than simply caring for human beings.
Psychiatry is not a noble cause gone wrong, catering to a systemic and epistemic need. It is not a bad theory that needs to be replaced.
It is the idiocy and destructiveness of ‘entitled’ people that put their opinions above their fellow human beings.
I was not thinking about survivors. I was thinking about critics in the systems.
A lot of ‘clerical’ critics, like psychiatrists for example, for all their theoretical repudiation of the ogre, seem unable to relinquish some parts of it.
I find people walking the light path in the shadows of self-interests deeply irritating.
I am a survivor and my life has been severerely impaired by psychiatry. I am one of the destroyed children.
So, be sure, that belittling survivors NEVER crossed my mind. I was not refering to them.
This is something that keeps puzzling me.
I think it is a way for some ‘critics’ (not citing any names) to criticize the system on a sofa.
Either by weakness or self interest, its a way to gain both the moral comfort AND the institutional comfort, by both pointing at the flaws of a system but still acting as if it was a respectable capable agent.
Nice verbal flourishes about the wound, but shying away from the blood and the chaos of any upheaval.
I have a special scorn for the tepid sofa ‘critic’ (not citing any name, RW not included of course).
“In this interview, she discusses the importance of placing human suffering before theoretical preferences.”
OMG. Finally reading this on MIA.
Im really tired of all those ‘alternative models’ that are sometimes laid out on MIA.
Models are abstract strongholds where people put a lot of dirty things, including self interests, that end up defending the theory rather than the suffering it purports to adress.
Yes, sure, killing people 25 years earlier after having nullified their life and destroyed their prefrontal cortex is better than nothing.
People seem to be biased towards any kind of intervention when facing sth problematic.
But an intervention is not good on the basis of being an intervention. It may very well compound the situation (a lot).
As Phil Hickey so aptly framed in one of his collectors sentence:
“you can’t help people by damageing their brain”.
“There is a definite place for their drugs, but they should only be prescribed to a fraction of those who take them now”.
I highly disagree.
I always wonder how a reasoning human being can settle for such a disappointing, crude, and harmful mean (drugs).
Drugs are ugly distorters of the delicate brain with horrendous side effects.
Maybe, in some situation, such a blunt ‘tool’, is the only way to stall a disaster. But it must be EXTREMELY ponctual and limited (if ever used), with the shameful awareness of the grotesque inadequacy and dangerousness of the product.
But it is too crude to be registered on the official arsenal.
I find it deeply sad and inhumane that there are people that can’t seem to be able to envision things without those fucking drugs (aka damageing brain distorters).
Why is it ok to treat other humans like guinea pigs? Why is it ok not to do everything to avoid such a grotesque situation?
Why is it that so many critics can’t seem to get pass this nonsensical wall? It is a honest question that deeply baffles and saddens me.
I strongly disagree with the statement that violence is mainly caused by drugs. Of course it is in some cases, but violence is a human possibility.
These drugs are terrible brain distorters but excessive demonization just detract from cogent and legitimate criticism.
Human beings can do bad things. No need to be ‘mentally ill ‘ for that. Nazis are not deemed mentally ill.
I dont think locking people into the highly stigmatized circle of fear that is such a label can be productive.
It erases persons, human connection, and perspective of evolution.
Sometimes force has to be used as a last resort in desperate situation, but it is an option of crisis that should never be elevated to a standard of treatment.
And I think human beings should be accompanied, not ‘treated’. We are not virus.
Yes sure, neuro is a synonym of bio and still takes the first place. Much change really…
The unique other mention of socio eco feels like a way for economist to nab a piece of the cake, rather than an advancement of the wellfare or people.
I am repeating myself, but models are ideological enforcers that miss the wholeness and diversity of life and end up advancing guild interests rather than anything.
Its just a way of so called ‘specialists’ to promote themselves and of making competencies up.
Lets keep things rooted and human and simple, rather than ideological and acadamic please.
I propose ‘human accompanying’. See? Its simple really.
Of course its not very shiny as a professional and academic title, which is a big problem in an exploitive society mired in greedy and egotistical guild interests.
Can a crude and blind disruption of the brain harm you?
yes, like everything else in the psych roster.
What is the procedure for the “youth at risk”?
10 percent of brain vanished and 25 years of life removed?
This expression makes me laugh so hard.
I was at risk when psychiatry destroyed my mind as early as 14.
People with problems are more likely to curse? Really?
Is there only one person in the world who can take this seriously?
Yea but simple things arent glamorous.
A lot of professionals , especially in the MH field, have a need to complexify things in order to shore up their appearance of mastery. Poke through the balloon, and the illusion collapse.
Vast castles are built on thin air, or airy self-importance.
Its all about selling epistemic status, which is an other form of exploitation of the powerless.
Homo homini lupus, even in the theories.
One can say that the MH industry is a greedy overcomplification of empathy, humanity, and keen advice.
Its an amazing and scary chimera, which has planted its nest on the back of those it is purported to help.
I disagree about what is presented as a habit bias.
It is indeed a profit bias.
Attention is forced there for reasons that far supersede the mere custom of research. It is locked by exploiting powers, not just a lazy paradigm.
Besides, the highlighted spot is not really full of light. The industry has been searching for decades, greedily scrutinizing the bio domain to no avail.
So its not an arbitrary receptor of light. More like a blind dump artificially bloated by greedy powers which are interested in locking the status quo.
Exploring the self-fueling quality of dominant paradigm is interesting, but I really think it is misplaced when it comes to the paralysis exerted by greedy behemoths.
It does not do justice to the abuse, IMO.
Removed for moderation.
It reminds me of Jay Joseph who was saying that secluding external factors from intrinsic factors is invalid, hence the binary estimate of heritability was fallacious. Just labels for the sake of a make believe nosology.
Also, because a drug has an effect does not make it a a legitimate corrective.
AND, I am really sick of the ‘improved neuronal transmission’.
Psychotropics don’t ‘increase’ neurotransmission in the sense of enhancement.
The brain is too complicated to be enhanced by humans means, at least for now.
Psychotropics mess with it and hinder important mechanisms, which prompt the brain to activate defensive and compensatory reactions in an effort to curb dysfunction.
Some of the distorsion can have effects on the mind, to the extent that a drug can have psychological alterations. But there is a price to pay for that, like for any drug.
SSRI litteraly means, ‘lets fuck up your serotonin recapture’.
Enough of this neuromodulation BS.
A drug aint a brain enhancer. Period.
I was a child who was destroyed by antidepressants.
I did not grow up with the world and myself like the other.
I had dementia, no emotions, and was so disabled that I was destined to nothing but be an oblivious, demented, hollow and inhuman wreck, without even having had the chance to know what life is and what to be human tastes. In many ways, I was more a monster, a mad creation, than a human.
I also almost killed myself during an AD switch. I was absolutely not suicidal. It felt as if my brain had been hijacked and was obsessed by self-termination, in a very impersonal, robotic way. Very scary.
That society is still discussing the viability of messing with its children brain is profoundly disgusting.
A lot of the approach of mentall distress is undermined by the healer need for protection against it.
A lot of so called healers believe in it (the chemical defect) to give themselves a sense of competency, and above that a sense of security and immunity (‘just a medical problem treatable by doctors which is caused by bad genes obviously i dont have etc’)
Funny how a system which boasts clairvoyance ability and mastery of madness is completely corrupted by blindness to basic projections and safeguards against one’s vulnerability.
Because we now know that genes are modulated by the environment, and that the brain is an interface connecting the world with ourselves, I do not understand how it is still tenable to adhere to the ideology of intrinsic aberrant biology.
It runs against even hardcore bioreductionism.
Im so tired of this shit.
Im so tired of this hydra which purports to be innocent.
I remember perfectly my first ad withdrawal.
I was 16. So innocent and so wrecked (tho i had the chance not be drugged during my childhood, only the teen period) I had confusion, lethargy and severe cognitive problems for months (before being misdiagnosed and restarted on ad, lol). It completely ruined my graduation year.
They have no fucking clue what their experiment entail.
It is time that they are dragged onto a public place, have their mouth forced open, and stuffed with their brain bullets.
It its time that they learn.
After having lived all that I lived at their hands, it is incredible seeing them more than a decade later still casting the denial refrain.
And then this society locks up and denigrates people with unconventional beliefs, although its belief in psych drug is at least on the same level of quirk. The only difference is that the quirk is conventional and enforced.
A belief which is dangerous and destructive.
So we have a society with strange DESTRUCTIVE thoughts which locks up people for their strange thoughts in the name of safety. lol.
Psychiatrists are the most dangerous madmen who ever walked the earth. They just chose the good delusion.
‘In this country, we now spend over twenty billion dollars a year on treatment for something called “ADHD.” For that amount of money, we could pay the mid-career salaries of an extra 365,000 teachers or 827,000 teachers’ aides. At what point do we ask whether we wish to continue pouring money down this particular black hole? If not now, when?’
Humanity is a race of being who use their taxes to finance the poisoning of their children.
Money above everything else.
Corporations have corrupted everything, so that after exploiting the labour, they also exploit their taxes and the body of their children.
Has anyone seen Alien director’s cut? (its a deleted scene so not really a spoiler)
At the end of the movie there is a deleted scene where Ripley see a wall covered by an organic matter, and she soon noticed two of her former comrades digested by the wall into alien eggs.
I have always thought that it is a fitting metaphor of the psychiatry-pharma monstrosity.
Humans whose value are just their bodies exploited like ressources, swallowed and digested into the callous reproductive system of a predator.
Now in the movie the swallowed ones were adults.
In this real (?) world, it is children.
Yeah humility should be the chief quality.
Made me think of Cassini ‘don’t hurt them twice’. The system is geared towards additional damage.
This is so fucked up.
Peers are a token of the defensiveness and gluttony of psychiatry. It devours and distorts everything, including the human alternative, that they now wield as a foil and parade after having distorted it.
I have come to realize that drugs are prescribed mainly on the basis on flawed and greedy short term studies.
This is really scary, that so few precautions are taken, that risks are blindly discarded and ignored.
Risks are not dutifully considered and explored and this is nothing short of utter madness.
I was a child whose mind was sacrificed by antidepressants.
I grew up with dementia and was so impaired that I actually developped a phobia of productivity (which was severely hampered), as well as a fear of thinking. I had to relearn to talk, so I know what this article is about.
When will there be reason in psychiatry (and medicine), and respect for human life? (and yes this is a cry of desperation)
If Im correct there is no proof that human behaviour is driven by genes.
Yeah. Sounds like ‘Surveillance’ rather than ‘Digital’ psychiatry.
This is ridiculous because human problems assigned mental disorders are deeply personal, symbolic, and contextual. And a machine can’t read that.
Monitoring humanity expression’s ‘FORMS’, rather than ‘MEANING’ cannot solve problems. At best it can police and enforce a system (psychiatry my old friend here you are…).
On a side note, this completely inadequate device also shows that the psychiatrists behind it don’t understand shit about what their work is about, and are thus also utterly inadequate.
They should be fired and mocked.
Seriously, humanity’s proficency in self-servingness, megalomany, and blind dumbness is AMAZING.
I personally never liked the term ‘extreme’.
Extreme compared to what, moderation? What is moderated and what is extreme? Aren’t those moral judgements propping up social order?
I dont think ‘distressed’, ‘disruptive’, or ‘intense’ are aptly encapsulated by ‘extreme’.
It actually sounds like a cleaning formulation which aims to neutralize the phenomenon by naming it and giving a false sense of explanation and thus security (psychotic phenomena are just extreme humanity), EXACTLY like a diagnosis does.
It could also be a way to purge the ‘psychotic’ self image (“Yeah, i was psychotic, you know, i somewhat got overwhelmed by the extreme” etc).
It does no justice to the actual phenomenon, the person implied, and the suffering entailed. It is just a way to capture the thing and turn it towards an entity own comfort/convention.
(I am not saying it was your intent, I just pounced on it on a general level, not your personal use).
Has psychiatry really been compared with Eric Clapton and thus indirectly termed “a god”?
I find this grave.
And no Soteria was not equal to psychiatry. Not if you take long term into account.
Psychiatry treatment is drugging, remember. Antipsychotics are chemical cosh.
So short term Soteria is a at least equal to AP deactivation (same result as a concussion).
BUT in the long term, psychiatry miserable outcome is completely crushed by the human, responsible, and SUSTAINED results that Soteria stands for.
Its not a healing competitor. There is no competition.
Besides, people who need help are not market shares that need to be raced for.
Saying that it threatened psychiatry pararadigm makes it sound like it is just an intellectual blunder and ideological territory. It is more vicious than that.
It threatened its -self serving- paradigm and its -power- territory.
Please dont water down the ugly truth.
There is no room for psychiatry, because, as Phil Hickey perfectly summarizes: it is “fundamentally flawed and rotten”.
“I suggest that mental health practitioners are best thought of as philosophical guides who adopt interpretive frameworks (paradigms) that they use to construct a particular narrative for describing the nature of a problem and the process of change.”
Here comes the venerable philosopher dispensing his lofty consideratiosn and uncanny acumen onto the feeble mind of the tormented.
I am sorry but philosophy has had very little practical value for human kind. Its value lies best in the pseudoeliticism of saying things in a convoluted way, which makes it little more than the ramblings of sophists who put on the veneer of wisdom without having been able to efficiently produce it.
I find this kind of self-aggrandizing fantasy dangerous. Helping people is not intellectual aristocracy. Its muddy. Its sad, painful, and bloody.
You have to get your hands dirty, to be able to be with a fellow human being, before even being able to interpret and exert an intellectual power, which lies so dangerously near the appeal of the personal prowess.
I always cringe when I hear Moncrieff talks about philosophy. Human misery is much dirtier than that.
That and the eternal problem of the systems (here paradigms, aka interpretative systems). Systems, particularly intellectual ones, are often ideologies which end up fought for rather than use for. Human nature always make it degenerate into a war of schools and blindness to reality.
You dont need good interpretative systems to be a good interpret. Its the bad one who needs them, and who cherishes them because they add another bullet to the imaginary belt of the intellectual cowboy they purport to be.
I am saying all this because healer is a role that humanity can sadly corrupt in so many ways, which ends up being harmful for the suffering one. And Im very sensitive to it. Intellectual aristocracy and delusion is one of them.
I think helping people is simpler and dirtier than that. I would put humility before intellectual capacity (though the latter is also required).
And yes I know being a good healer and above all a good and lucid human being is very hard. Granted.
There is a big problem as early as the title.
Holistic psychiatry is a glamorized amendment of people who are unable to relinquish their medical and personal status. They play the critical hero all the while displaying the same status-clinging, field-cherishing, and obliviousness as the common priest-psychiatrist. They just moved their inadequacy in the land of vitamins.
Medical skills are unsuited for the assistance of human distress. Period. There is no roundabout.
Plumbers are as fitted as doctors for that, so where are the articles about ‘integrative plumbery’ on MIA?
Medicine practitioners are not fitted for the helping of human distress. AND, because their ‘endeavour’ was so catastrophic, they are unwelcome.
Integrative practitioners have no power and will never make the Industry tremble. They are dangerous only for us, the survivors, because they can distract us with their flickering mushy ‘alternative’, which is just another system.
And systems are never good for helping people. Only good and smart people can, but they are rather rare.