Sunday, July 3, 2022

Comments by vet

Showing 10 of 10 comments.

  • B makes a good point re the difficulty of who would do such studies. However there is some hope in that such studies need not be too expensive; one model might simply look for suicides or attempts that occurred during or shortly after “treatment” by anyone who was not suicidal previously. I am aware of at least one person and possibly two, and would suppose there might be readers here who do also.

    Another angle would be find out what percentage of persons who made successful attempts had undergone unwanted “treatment”. Perhaps someone can suggest a way to put such an inquiry together using volunteers and some help from academia or other credible figures or agencies.

  • I have posted this great article many times on FB when I see someone advocate for more “mental health” spending or promote the notion that “getting them the treatment they need” will reduce or prevent suicide. I did so recently and today received a message from FB Community Standards that informed me that; “This content goes against our community standards on spam”.
    It included a place for me to click if I wanted them to review it which I did, but was given no field where I could say anything in defense of Ms. Bradshaw’s fine article. I have had several other censoring events, including one recently where an article about a study showing a link between psychiatric drugs and dementia I tried to post was prevented from doing so.

  • Defining the problem as some “disorder” of the “patient” needing “therapy” is fine if one’s aim is to deflect attention away from the epidemic of Military Sexual Assault (MSA). It helps to blame the victim, and reinforce the ideal that perpetrators should be rewarded while their prey are retaliated against.

    MSA is probably the leading trauma among active duty and vets “diagnosed” for their understandable responses to such trauma mislabeled as “symptoms”.

    Pathologizing and gaslighting such traumatized active duty and vets helps ensure the continuation of the epidemic of MSA, and the further traumatizing it entails. The real remedy is JUSTICE NOT TREATMENT. Instead of medicalizing the victims, make perps accountable under civil and criminal judicial systems instead of bloating the medical system with bogus “diagnoses”.

  • Many of the remarks of others replying here I agree with. The one point that strikes me is that the article seems to reflect the position of people who just don’t understand the word “recovery” in a helpful sense: the article states for example; “Peers are trained to share their own personal experiences of recovery from mental illness and open doors that otherwise would remain closed due to the stigma and shame associated with mental illnesses”.
    That is the definition used by those who buy the medical model. The “recovery” used by former psychiatric inmate’s means not recovery from “mental illness”, but recovery from the “treatment”.
    The existing drive for peer certification has become a strategic thrust on the part of those advocating the status quo to divide and conquer the current and former psychiatric inmate population and its efforts to restore their civil rights and lives.

  • Too bad there are no attorneys who will take such defamation injury as a court claim, especially for vets whose occupational life has been ruined not only by military psychiatric diagnoses, but the accompanying secret separation codes impressed on discharge papers which vets were not told of but employers were provided the keys for.
    There is no compensation available for lost income for such vets; The VA and the laws it operates under are oblivious to any harm caused by diagnoses. In fact it is policy that the very psychiatrists performing the labeling ritual are the ones given charge to assess employability of the labeled. This of course is a conflict of interest.
    Lacking too are research studies that would clearly show employment discrimination against those bearing psychiatric labels who are required by prospective employers to release information that the prospective employee may be barred from viewing.


    Is there no space in major media for presentation of the side that does not support the biophysical model? That supports instead civil and human rights? Here is another example of what appears to me to be part of a media blitz to turn back the clock and shore up the medical model, especially the last section where a self described “schizophrenic” sings the praises of psychiatry.

  • Hi Dan,
    I just read your comment and I’m upset about this too. The one stratagem that hasn’t been tried and I wish was is to see if a class action lawsuit might be filed against the purveyors of such hate speech. Make those who claim that people with psychiatric disorders have a biological defect of the brain prove it in court under a class action tort claim for defamation and libel. Make those who claim labeled people are more prone to violence prove that to a jury. Make those who claim psychiatric drugs are efficacious in reducing violence do likewise. Make those who go up and down as a talebearer among the people pay damages for the unemployment or underemployment they cause.

    The trouble is, where can an attorney or law firm be found with the stones to take such a case? The Bars of most states have considered a person with a psychiatric label to be unfit for admission to the Bar based upon its “Character and Fitness”portion of its exam.

    The claim that one group on the basis of a true or claimed biological distinctiveness may deprive the rights of those they hold their inferiors is what the eugenics movement held. It is what the Euro Americans who enslaved Afro Ameicans held. It is the same claim held by Euro Americans who committed genocide upon Native Americans. It is the same claim that permitted the Nazi doctors to conduct sadistic experiments on Jews and Gypsies in Europe and American doctors who experimented on Afro American men to discover the long term course of syphilis. It was the rationale for the Holocaust. It was the foundation of feudalism which maintained that only those of “royal blood” could own property. It is the rationale for nearly every kind of enslavement, genocide and inequality there has ever been. It amounts to a kind of racism.

  • If it is not a civil rights movement, there needs to be one. Stabbing people with needles and injecting harmful chemicals in them seems to me to be a violation of our 4th Amendment right to security of person. Same for shock and locking people up who have committed no crime.
    It is my guess that the majority of civil commitment proceedings are of the kind where the judge rubber stamps whatever the state psychiatrist says. This is not what should be considered due process (5th Amendment). It is prior restraint and too often I suspect carried out so that cronies of the judge are the attorneys supposedly representing the alleged “mentally ill person”. How often do individuals so incarcerated have what would be recognized as a vigorous defense of their liberty? Is a state appointed attorney also available if an incarcerated person wishes to petition for discharge? Are PAIMI funded organizations taking such cases?
    What kind of pre incarceration and “treatment” hearing is there to military personnel on active duty? Are they able to access their 5th Amendment right to due process?
    If one is harmed by psychiatric drugs or other involuntary “treatment “ harms, can the doctors and institutions which caused the harms be held accountable in either criminal or civil claims? Can veterans access their right to petition for redress? (1st Amendment) Will such petitions result in actual redress? Will they result in the same way for both veterans and non veterans? If not what happened to the 14th Amendment to equal protection?
    The point I am trying to make here is that as terrible involuntary psychiatry is for individuals and their loss of civil rights, thus equality with persons not so “treated”, what needs to be understood is that involuntary psychiatric treatment is not merely an insult to the people who have undergone it, it is an insult to the civil liberties we supposedly have as Americans .
    What people often forget is that since the inception of this country there have been people opposed to civil liberty. Then they were called Torys. The “mental health” movement is the most recent incarnation or iteration of the ideology of those opposed to liberty. To advocates of this ideology “mental health” is more important than civil rights. What has too infrequently not been made clear is that one cannot hope to have a country where there are both civil rights and an involuntary “mental health” system. They are contradictions; mutually exclusive. One has one or the other. They cannot coexist.
    I maintain there has long been an extension of the War of Independence, or Revolutionary war. The present day Torys are those who would chip away the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They chip away, I say with the aim to abolish these ideals altogether. Both psychiatric inmates and active duty personnel and vets have lost these rights. They are gone, and involuntary psychiatry is here in their place. These just mentioned groups are the canaries in the mine. Our task it seems to me is the same as the one undertaken by Thomas Paine; to promote the cause of freedom.