Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Comments by Slaying_the_Dragon_of_Psychiatry

Showing 100 of 986 comments. Show all.

  • Thanks Mischa. This is great stuff.

    As soon as you make a point, I’m sure that people reading your posts would be happy to consider what it might be. But thus far you have simply thrown around insults and made ad hominem attacks without presenting any actual arguments or supplying any evidence for your conclusions. I don’t think anyone has the time or the inclination to insult you, nor does anyone on MIA care about genuflection. Many people express a wide variety of views on these issues (and I would add that for the most part they do so civilly).

    As for “this shrink Kelmenson,” he’s received plenty of push back from plenty of people. But by all means, feel free to jump back in and throw around accusations and insult everyone. It’s comical. If you have a point to make, I’m sure that everyone would be willing to hear you out. But if not, I’m sure that everyone will at least be entertained by your diatribes.

  • And now Mischa confounds the notion of “mentally disturbed” with “mental illness.” How dare anyone question psychiatric dogma! It’s “science.” 🙂 Mischa, you might want to support your pontifications with some evidence. If you’ve discovered a real “mental illness,” please inform the rest of us, because yours would be the first discovery of its kind, and a scientific breakthrough.

  • The false notion of “mental illness” is actually a product of post-modernism, and Old Head is perfectly capable of thinking for himself. The problem is that the myth of mental illness is so pervasive that the slightest amount of skepticism is often counted as heresy. No, there is no such thing as “mental illness,” and no, that reality has not been debunked. That’s the difficult thing about reality… it’s hard to debunk.

  • Lawrence still calls these kinds of things voluntary. That’s the half-truth. In order for an act to be truly voluntary, the person making the decision must have clear knowledge of the decision that he or she is making. Psychiatry obfuscates and deceives in such a way as to manipulate people into thinking that they are making voluntary decisions for their “mental health” when in reality they are being sucked into a pseudo-scientific system of slavery. Therefore, it is false to claim that there is any such thing as voluntary psychiatry, just as it would be false to claim that chattel slaves voluntarily worked on the plantations or that Jews voluntarily trod to the gas chambers. Psychiatry is all about coercion, force, deception, and abuse. It is, as Szasz rightly understood (and entitled one of his books), the science of lies.s

  • True. Of course the difference is that Santa Claus “brings” us presents; the Tooth Fairy “brings” us money; The Easter Bunny “brings” us chocolate and eggs; but what does mental illness “bring” us? Involuntary incarceration, torture, drugging, labeling, abuse, iatrogenic harm, and sometimes death. That is why I came up with a good myth to slay the bad myth. – Slay the Dragon of Psychiatry

  • “Psychiatry is not THE problem, it is a tool of the system, which is the ultimate problem. Though I suspect Dragon Slayer will disagree with that part.”

    I would be willing to entertain the notion that psychiatry itself is not the whole problem at the deepest level, although I probably disagree about the source of the problem of psychiatry and how that is connected to other problems in society. That’s ok though. We agree that psychiatry itself IS a problem, and that’s a good start.

    As far as “the system,” I also agree that there are problems on a very basic level, but getting at the roots of these problems requires a lot of intense study and historical perspective. In short, I’m not exactly sure where we disagree, but wherever it is, it is secondary to our agreement regarding the destructive nature of psychiatry.

  • Yes. I get it. Suffering does exist, like registeredforthissite writes, but psychiatry CAUSES a major portion of that suffering. It is also true that people want to help, but very few people understand that one of the best ways to help is to abolish psychiatry. The abolition of psychiatry will bring about more human flourishing and help more people than anything psychiatry could ever devise. Slavery, torture, abuse, drugging, shocking, labeling, incarceration, coercion, force, and oppression do not help people. But this is what psychiatry is all about, from top to bottom, from the beginning to the end, which end will hopefully come soon. Why not go to the source? To the root of the problem? Why all the dancing and tiptoeing around the real issue? The dragon of psychiatry sits in her filthy lair, with piles of wealth that have been amassed from the suffering of innocent children, the homeless, the elderly, and others – and there she rolls around on her bloated belly and laughs. She breathes the fiery myths of “mental illness” until the smoke deceives almost the entire world into a horribly complacency and docility. Enough is enough. The time has come to slay the dragon of psychiatry.

  • Oldhead makes an important point here. We need to be careful when discussing the myth of mental illness – or any of the psychiatric myths – that we don’t pretend that the myth corresponds to some underlying reality. In other words, we need to make it perfectly clear that there is no such thing as mental illness, or mental health. There is no underlying “it” to argue about. When this is clear, all the nonsense about so-called “bipolar,” “schizophrenia,” “ADHD,” “OCD,” etc. can be eliminated. But it is certainly helpful for doctors to expose the myth for what it is, since many people rely on professional medical opinions as a substitute for thinking.

  • A wooden nickel! Yes. That’s right. I would simply add that it is a poisonous wooden nickel. The dragon of psychiatry thrives on the corresponding myths of so-called “mental illness” and “mental health,” as well as the “chemical imbalance” hoax. Thomas Szasz’ timeless classic “The Myth of Mental Illness” is still the best book that has ever been written on this topic.

  • “For the residue of my estate, I instruct my executor as follows: To pay the Governing Council at University of Toronto one hundred per cent (100%) of the residue of my estate to be used to augment the Dr. Bonnie Burstow Scholarship in Antipsychiatry at the University of Toronto at Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.”

    Amazing. This is incredible. Thank you.

    “How does one bestow credibility and legitimacy on an area or a perspective when in the public eye, it has almost none?”

    Your books and your scholarship and will are as good a start as anything that I have observed in recent years. Truth should already have credibility and legitimacy, but sadly, so few people understand the truth about psychiatry. The wonder is that psychiatry has any credibility and legitimacy in the public eye, when precisely the opposite should be the case.

    “How does one turn antipsychiatry into a respected area of study and practice in the face of psychiatric hegemony?”

    That is an excellent question, and I’m grateful for the great work that you have already done. The rest of the questions and answers are also excellent. Thank you.

    I’m ready to teach courses in antipsychiatry 101 all the way up to graduate level courses in antipsychiatry. I certainly have enough material for an excellent dissertation right now.

    Exciting news. Thank you. 🙂

  • No! No. No. No. No. This is very disappointing. Phil is one of the best writers for MIA, but this is just wrong. I’m very disappointed. Psychiatry must be ABOLISHED, along with all of the pseudo-scientific subsidiaries. Anti-psychiatry has nothing to do with finding replacements or criticizing psychiatry or the so-called medical model. Anti-psychiatry means ABOLISHING psychiatry and everything that reeks of psychiatry. Usually Phil is spot on with his articles, but I’m very concerned about this trend toward critical psychiatry that attempts to usurp the name of anti-psychiatry.

    Frank is absolutely right. “Mental distress” will become yet another psychiatric euphemism. For HEAVEN’S SAKE people! Just mind your own business. If you think someone else has “mental distress,” then go look in the mirror and consider the ways in which you might be causing it. Good grief. I’m so sick of psychiatry. Come hell or high water, I will find a way to slay the dragon of psychiatry.

  • Amen sister! As you pursue your journey, and read the articles in the link that I shared, you will discover why even the notion of “mental health” is misleading. Best wishes.

  • Thanks for this article Michele. Your story provides more evidence that psychiatry does not spare even the highly successful, intelligent, and attractive members of society. Of course psychiatry preys upon the vulnerable of society most of all, but no one is immune.

    It sounds like you have begun to discover the truth about psychiatry by reading Whitaker and Brogan. This is a good start. If you would like to learn more, the truth goes even deeper than that:

  • Thanks Chaya. Good point. Since psychotropic drugs are so obviously not “medicine” or “medication,” someone must have thought that a more subtle euphemism would be “meds.” What on earth are “meds”? Are they “medications”? No. Are they “medicine”? No. They’re “meds,” or in other words, brain destroying, neurotoxic, psychotropic, thanatophoric chemicals. It’s still dishonest and misleading, just like everything else in psychiatry. But we’re talking about a pseudo-scientific system of slavery that is so deceptive that euphemisms like “emotional lability” are used to cover up murder.

  • I see your point Eric. Thank you. In reality, the language is already there. As Szasz has eloquently articulated, like Kraus before him, it is psychiatry that has distorted the language. There is no need to create a new language. All that is necessary is to reject the false language that psychiatry has invented to promote its false concepts.

  • Eric, thanks. Of course one can sympathize with your sincere account. The only quibble that I have is that you seem to grant too much to psychiatry by using terms like “psychosis” and “mad.” You are not “mad” or “psychotic” or “mentally ill.” No one is any one of these things, no matter how much psychiatric myth-makers would have us believe it.

  • Good article. Thanks.

    The question, of course, is what on earth is meant by the phrase “saved your life.” Imagine a world in which there never had been any psychotropic drugs. What would people say about persevering through challenging times? One might say that a good friend “save my life.” Another might say that improving my diet “saved my life.” Yet another might say that more consistent and better exercise “saved my life.” Instead, we live in a world in which Big Pharma and psychiatry have colluded to create and distribute neurotoxic drugs to which people then ignorantly ascribe their happiness and well-being: Neurotoxic drugs “saved my life.” Damaging psychiatric labels and involuntary incarceration “saved my life.” A pseudo-scientific, drug dealing psychiatrist “saved my life.” Give. Me. A. Break.

    This is the key sentence in your article: “What we do know is that once someone’s life is destroyed or killed by psychiatry, they no longer have the voice to testify.” There are many reasons for this. A couple of these reasons, as you mentioned, are that a person may be killed or maimed in such a way as to render them unable to testify. Nevertheless, the blood of the innocent cries out from the ground for justice, and the groans of the wounded ascend to heaven where God in His mercy groans with them. It may be, however, that the more prevalent problem is that psychiatric survivors DO have a voice, and they DO speak… but NO ONE LISTENS. Even Mad in America, a supposedly “critical psychiatry” organization, is not really listening.

    Why is this? Because only psychiatric survivors really know what is going on from the inside. If psychiatry is a pseudo-scientific system of slavery that is destroying the lives of millions of innocent people (AND IT IS), but the vast majority of people still believe that psychiatry is a field of medicine that helps the “mentally ill” or “saves peoples lives,” how will this racket ever be exposed for what it is? It is more nefarious than chattel slavery in this way, because at least it was apparent to all that slavery in the South was wrong. Southern slave owners might even be stung by their own consciences from time to time. Not so with psychiatry. Under psychiatric slavery, many of the slaves believe that the slavery is saving their lives, and many slave masters are praised for their benevolence – assuaged by their own conscience that they are providing a needed service for humanity:

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C.S. Lewis

    Of course, there is nothing remotely “medical” about “meds.” The word “meds” is a euphemism for a dangerous neurotoxic drug. Just because hoards of people have been deceived by psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry does not mean that their lives have been saved by these “meds.” In fact, the best way to destroy lives and make people slaves is to fool them into believing that they are free. Psychiatry either forcibly removes liberty from people or it deceives people into willingly surrendering their liberty. Many people willingly surrender their liberty with a belief in the false notion that psychiatric “meds” will heal them. Either way, psychiatry robs them of their liberty.

    Psychiatric “meds” DO NOT save lives. They fool people into believing that their lives are being saved while simultaneously robbing them of the liberty and the means to persevere through difficult times. This is just one of the many reasons why the dragon of psychiatry must be slain.

  • Nothing against you personally Steffen. I’m sure that you’re a decent person. I’m merely pointing out that this “program” is an offense to thinking individuals. Please familiarize yourself with the history of psychiatry, including the writings of Karl Kraus and Thomas Szasz. The notion of “psychosis” is part of psychiatric myth making. “Psychosis,” like mental illness, is a myth. Danke schoen.

  • “Rather, we depend fully on federal grants and donations for the development and dissemination of MCT materials.”

    This article is helpful, in a sense, because it provides more evidence for the myriad ways in which tax dollars may be wasted. Psychiatry itself is a colossal delusion. It is the epitome of error, bias, false beliefs, delusions, and fixed false beliefs. Any thinking person understands that psychiatry is, as Szasz rightly understood, the science of lies. Psychiatry is a pseudo-scientific system of slavery, and no amount of fictional “therapy” can justify the atrocities that are carried out under its supposed authority.

    Unlike Bugs Bunny, the myth of mental illness leaves nothing but destruction in its wake. Fictional “diseases” such as those listed in this article (i.e. geriatric depression, borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia) do more harm than any fictional “cure” could ever resolve. This is not thinking about thinking. That’s what philosophy is for. This is just one more manifestation of the delusional thinking that is characteristic of psychiatry.

    Rather than attempt to treat such psychiatric delusions, I would simply recommend that people read more, and better books.

  • I just read the title of this article and thought that bright light therapy might also be more effective in treating Santa Claus’s depression, the Easter Bunny’s ADHD, and the Tooth Fairy’s Schizophrenia.

    Good grief people. There’s no such thing as “bipolar disorder.” It’s a figment of the psychiatric imagination, just like every other bit of the myth of “mental illness.” There’s no such thing as an “antidepressant” either.

    It’s simply sickening to considering how much money is being wasted on “studies” such as these. Nietzsche mocked the modern scholar who would become an expert on the brain of a leech, but he could never have foreseen the extent of the stupidity of the modern psychiatric researcher.

  • According to this CVS document, “non-adherence” can lead to “hospitalization” or death. Of course, precisely the opposite is true. “Adherence” to psychotropic drugging is what leads to “hospitalization” (involuntary incarceration), and sometimes death.

    The CVS document refers to neurotoxic psychotropic drugs as “medication.” “Medication” is a euphemism. There is nothing remotely medical in nature about these drugs. Unless we are willing to call cocaine, heroine, and LSD “medication,” there is no reason to call these drugs “medication.” Unless we are willing to call jumping off a 200 foot cliff onto jagged rocks or driving a bullet bike 200 mph into a brick wall “medication,” there is no reason to call neurotoxic psychotropic drugs “medication.” Perhaps the Athenians medicated Socrates with hemlock? Perhaps chattel slaves were medicated with whips and chains? Perhaps Nazis medicated Jews and others with hydrogen cyanide? Is Bashar al-Assad medicating Syrians with chlorine bombs and sulfur mustard?

    Another obvious psychiatric euphemism in this CVS document is the word “therapy.” There is nothing remotely therapeutic about psychiatry. Unless we are willing to call torture, abuse, labeling, involuntary incarceration, and drugging “therapy,” which is exactly what psychiatry does. Psychiatry is an insidious branch of what Szasz called the therapeutic state. This CVS document is just one vivid example of how psychiatry, under the aegis of the therapeutic state, attempts to coerce and oppress its victims.

    Benjamin Franklin proposed the following slogan for the seal of the United States: “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” Sanctioned by the therapeutic state, psychiatry is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific system of tyranny. Psychiatry is tyranny in blatant and subtle ways. There are blatant tyrannical measures that are promoted by psychiatry, such as this CVS mandate. Psychiatry also uses more subtle methods of tyranny.

    “Isn’t this still America—where you have a right to stop taking your medication with or without your doctor’s approval?” No. This is America where innocent children, youth, adults, the elderly and even the homeless are subjected to psychiatric force, labeling, abuse, drugging, involuntary incarceration, shock, torture, and even death. This is America where the therapeutic state seeks to dominated the original constitutional democratic republic. This is America where brain destroying chemicals are called “medication,” and pseudo-scientific jailers and drug dealers are called “doctors.” This is America where psychiatry, a pseudo-scientific system of slavery, is considered to be a field of “medicine.” This is America where the myth of mental illness rules, and the chemical imbalance hoax prevails. This is America, the home of the therapeutic state.

    CVS provides the ammunition for the psychiatric branch of the therapeutic state. Like the SOMA drug in the brave new world of which Huxley so presciently wrote, CVS prescriptions are designed to keep the once vigilant citizens of the United States drugged into a chemical stupor. A fearful and sedated citizenry is the joy of a tyrannical government. Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty. And where the government supports psychiatric oppression, you have a new form of tyranny that Szasz rightly called the therapeutic state.

    C.S. Lewis foresaw this kind of tyranny long ago:

    “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

    The time has come to slay the dragon of psychiatry.

  • I’m glad that at least oldhead, Deacon, and a few others get it. Meanwhile, thanks to a large government grant, I’ve been conducting some very important scientific research on the Easter bunny and the Tooth-Fairy. Unfortunately, we just don’t have the technology to accurately measure the genetic makeup and the metabolic rates of these amazing creatures. Thus, I’m sorry to report that as yet our studies remain inconclusive. I am happy to report, however, that Santa Claus’s brain scans show that frequent movement up and down chimneys produces an increase of serotonin and dopamine levels, particularly in the hippocampus and cortex. Therefore, in the not too distant future I feel confident that we will be able to prove that Santa Claus’s schizophrenia will be curable thanks to a new milk and cookie flavored psychotropic drug.

  • Rachel777, I agree with you that selfishness and lack of love and compassion from neighbors and family members is at the root of the problem. Thank you for your reply. What distinction do you make between “involuntary” and “voluntary” psychiatry? I’m not sure that there is a real distinction, but I would be interested to know what you think. Thanks again.

  • EXACTLY! Thank you Mr. Timimi. Finally someone is making the connection between the psychiatric myths of “mental illness” and the myth of “Autism.” Bleuler did not diagnose his “patients.” He invented a concept, a label. That invention, like the invention of “Schizophrenia,” has had disastrous consequences. This is a very well written and measured article. It may be that you concede too much to psychiatry. Even Kanner did not really “diagnose” his “patients.” Categorizations of behaviors do not constitute diagnoses of diseases. The resultant medicalization and proliferation of false diagnoses has terrible consequences in the lives of innocent children.

    The myth of “Autism” has rarely been investigated so well and so thoroughly. Well done. The so-called “twin studies,” genetic studies, and brain scans are all part of the pseudo-scientific charlatanry of psychiatry. The key, as Mr. Timimi has shown, is to go back to Bleuler to discover an answer to the question “What is Autism?” Even Bleuler didn’t know. That is the shocking truth of the matter. What does the term “Autism” even mean? Bleuler coined the term that he derived from the Greek “autos,” meaning self, as if to show that “Autism” is a disease of morbid self-admiration. What utter nonsense! Only a morbidly self-admiring psychiatrist could concoct such absurdities. Bleuler is also responsible for inventing the false diagnosis of “schizophrenia.” And wouldn’t you know it, Bleuler was a eugenicist. If we do a little research, it is easy to see the connection between Nazi eugenicism, which also included horrific “twin studies,” and modern psychiatry as it is traced through “Autism” and “Schizophrenia.”

    Mr. Timimi has made a major break through in this article. Szasz wrote extensively about the myth of mental illness, but who will expose the myth of Autism more particularly? Mr. Timimi has made a good start.

  • Thank Richard. To keep it simple, I will just respond the best way that I know how, which is first to emphasize the truth that we share, namely eternally hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. I also sense that we share a truth in a certain hope that human nature can be transformed for the better and that cooperation at the highest level is possible. I can appreciate that. Where we differ, I believe, is in how that human nature is transformed for the better and how that cooperation at the highest level is possible. I can jive with your song, and your article, and with the idea that there are yet great discoveries and advances to be made. I can even separate the desire for cooperation on the highest level that you call socialism from what I think socialism really entails. In other words, I believe that the truth that we share is greater than our differences. Rock on! Slay the dragon of psychiatry.

  • Great song Richard! Thank you. I appreciate your music and your creative endeavors, as well as your implacable opposition to psychiatry. I also oppose the hegemony of the therapeutic state, psychiatry and Big Pharma, and I can understand the justifiable concerns regarding the love of filthy lucre that is the root of all evil. Frank and mi raise the right questions in response. Socialism and communism are not the answer. But I greatly appreciate the work that went into the song and this article. Well done.

  • Bingo. A diagnosis can only pertain to an actual disease. Psychiatry does not diagnose. It labels. It invents fake “diagnoses” to apply to fake “diseases.” This works perfectly in a system in which fake “doctors” apply fake “remedies” to fake “patients.” It’s all a fraud. Even “malpractice” is putting it lightly, because the term “malpractice” assumes that there would be such a thing as good practice of psychiatry, which is simply not the case. Psychiatry is a pseudo-scientific system of slavery. It is a purely fraudulent endeavor that harms millions of innocent people. Slay the Dragon of Psychiatry.

  • Exactly. But I really hope that none of our disagreements will encourage Lawrence to go on a wild goose chase after “scientific data” for such a poorly conceived hypothesis. That wild goose chase would lead nowhere, and be even less fruitful than the hopeless psychiatric witch hunt for so-called “biological markers” for mythical “mental illness.” I’m sure that those of us who are truly antipsychiatry would still be happy to have Lawrence come back to the side of the truth in defense of victims of psychiatry.

  • I’ve been testing my hypothesis: reading Lawrence’s speculative article and comments causes cognitive decline. There seems to be much evidence thus far to support the conclusion that Lawrence’s writing of this speculative article and comments was a result of cognitive decline, but thus far, miraculously, Steve and others do not seem to have experienced the same cognitive decline while reading them.

    Joking aside, allow me to lay to rest the false and damaging notion that “adults who are on drugs can’t use their cognitive skills since their brains are too sedated to do so, so their cognitive skills will expectably gradually decline from continual disuse.” First of all, Lawrence would need to define what it means to be “on drugs.” Is this a person who takes who takes an Ambien every so often, or a is this someone who has been riddled with ritalin, adderall, or subjected to polypharmacy and forced injections? Then he would have to define “cognitive skills.” Even drugged up human beings use plenty of “cognitive skills,” and as I mentioned earlier, it might take more brain power just to operate on a basic level. What is meant by “too sedated.” A person’s brain cannot be “sedated” unless something is “sedating” it, and that “sedation” is the result of a real interaction between a chemical compound and the brain. Next, I think that the word that Lawrence was looking for was “expectedly.”

    In any case, the simple truth that can’t be avoided is that psychiatry CAUSES damage to the brain’s of its victims, first by the direct impact of psychotropic, neurotoxic drugs, and secondly by convincing its victims that the natural responses to the drugging is just a manifestation of some mysterious, underlying “mental illness.” Even worse, psychiatry then blames the victims of psychotropic drugging and psychiatric labeling for the suffering that they experience as a result of psychiatric interventions.

    “How could a chemically-impaired brain learn or remember anything?” Lawrence, I thought that you didn’t believe that drugs can chemically impair the brain. At least that’s what your article and previous comments seem to imply. Do drugs chemically impair the brain or not? Yes. They do.

    Lawrence’s speculations are not only tenuous at best, but they are also an affront to the victims of psychotropic drugging. Victims of psychotropic drugging come from all walks of life. I would venture to argue that if psychiatry had developed its arsenal of brain damaging drugs much earlier, many of the great minds of the past might have been destroyed. Actually, many great minds were destroyed by psychiatry in the past anyhow, and many more are being destroyed in the present. There are young Lincolns, Einsteins, Mozarts, Rembrandts, and Miltons whose brains have been assaulted by psychiatrists, and who may never recover or live long enough to fully overcome psychiatric abuse. This is a travesty of colossal proportions.

    One last thing. Just as a personal testimony, I can guarantee our MIA audience that when I was forced to drop out of school, not just once, but twice, and when the suffering caused by the drugs was so severe that death would have seemed sweet to me at the time – I can guarantee you that what I experienced was not “cognitive decline due to disuse.” It was torture, abuse, and drugging. I didn’t have difficulty reading because I had stopped trying to read. For a time, the drugs made it next to impossible to read, to sleep, to have normal emotions, and good relationships. Like many victims of psychotropic drugging, I struggled with all my might just to survive and finally to escape the foul clutches of psychiatry. Thus my brain, along with the rest of me, grew stronger under the shackles of psychiatry. If we want to talk about disuse and atrophy, we might want to consider the disuse and atrophy of the brains and consciences of psychiatrists and mental health workers. It may still be possible for psychiatrists to recover from the disuse and atrophy of their brains and their consciences, but since their salary depends on such disuse and atrophy, recovery can be very difficult.

  • “And the last thing I want to do is seem like I am minimizing how chronic sedative use ruins people’s lives.” But that’s precisely what your article did, which is why there was such a pronounced reaction to your claims.

    “I’m just suggesting that they ruin lives via a different mechanism than is widely thought, one that may be at least somewhat recoverable from with patience and hard work.” And what is this elusive “mechanism” of which you write? We really ought to begin with what is already known, much of which has been outlined in the work of Burstow, Moncrieff, and Breggin. We can also begin with the testimonies of victims of psychiatry. When they tell you about their experiences, they are not making them up. It is an insult to the immense suffering of psychiatric survivors to claim that recovery is simply a matter of patience and hard work, as if the drugs were just a little glitch to get through. Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, but that’s how many commenters seemed to understand your arguments.

    No one who has not experienced psychotropic drugging first hand can possibly begin to fathom the intensity of the suffering that that results from such psychiatric abuse. That is why there is such a terrible disconnect between so-called “professionals,” even the best of them, and actual victims of psychiatry.

  • I don’t know why you avoid all the substantive questions Lawrence. A lot depends on what you mean by “permanent” damage. It is quite possible, and even likely, that the brain damage caused by drugs may be permanent in some respects, but that a person may still fully recover from the trauma and even develop new strengths. Sadly, Phoenix, like many victims of psychiatric abuse, still adheres to a pro-psychiatry paradigm, a paradigm that your present theory fully supports.

    “Of course the shutting down of all thoughts/feelings/initiative/behaviors, or oppression, is the purpose of these drugs.” Not quite. These are the RESULTS of the drugging. The immediate EFFECTS are to DAMAGE receptors, neurons, and various parts of the human brain. The virus analogy doesn’t hold. The hammer analogy is more appropriate.

    Of course you are free to launch your very tenuous hypothesis. But your case is made worse by the attempt to connect such a tenuous, pro-psychiatry hypothesis with anything that is truly antipsychiatry.

  • Lawrence, this theory of yours, which has no evidence to support it, is as pro-psychiatry as they come. There is a vast chasm between pyschiatry’s false claim that “mental illness” requires “treatment” because biologically defective brains don’t function normally, and the universally recognized and incontrovertible fact that psychotropic drugs alter the brain and CAUSE the very symptoms that they are purported to cure. Moreover, your theory plays right into the hands of psychiatry because you continue to use psychiatric terminology such as “antipsychotics” and “antidepressants.” There is no such thing as an “antipsychotric” or an “antidepressant.” These neurotoxic drugs would more aptly be named “psychotics” or “depressants.”

    You claim that the “cognitive functioning” of “sedated people” declines over time. This is precisely what psychiatrists would like the general public to believe. What can possibly be meant by “sedated people”? Some substance was prescribed, or forced upon these victims of psychiatry, and that substance clearly does something to the brains of victims of psychiatry to “sedate” them. The fact is that psychotropic, neurotoxic drugs DAMAGE the brain in ways that have yet to be fully understood, because, as you mentioned, the human brain is infinitely more complex than anyone can possibly begin to understand.

    Your theory that victims of psychotropic drugging lose capacities because of disuse is simply unfounded. If I smack you on the head with a sledge-hammer, and you forget all the Spanish that you learned in high school, should I assume that your enfeebled memory is a result of disuse? Of course sadness is a normal human experience. Even drug-induced despair and suicidal ideation is a reasonable, though painful, response to psychotropic drugging. But psychiatry, through its poisonous chemical compounds that masquerade as “medicine,” CAUSES many, if not most of these symptoms.

    I oppose the medical model more than anyone on this planet because I oppose psychiatry itself. There is a difference between the psychiatric claim that “abnormal anatomy” causes “abnormal functioning” and the scientific fact that psychotropic drugs damage the brain and the rest of the body in ways that have yet to be fully explained. These drugs are not “placebos.” They are drugs. You know that as well as anyone. Are drugs good for the brain? No. Do they damage the brain? Yes. Is that brain damage a psychiatric disease? No. Is psychiatry responsible for these crimes? Yes.

    You claim that ECT is different because it clearly fries the brain. In a different, though similarly painful way, drugs CLEARLY fry the brain. An electrical current is different from chemical interventions, but that doesn’t mean that chemical interventions are harmless. And just as a side note, if you buy into the “Autism” myth, you have already bought into the psychiatric paradigm that you so ardently claim to oppose.

    Brain damage isn’t measured merely by the symptoms that you mention, such as tics, etc. We may not fully understand how psychotropic, neurotoxic drugs damage the brain, but unless we admit that the drugs were designed to do just that, namely, damage the brain, then we are already taking the side of psychiatry.

    Another point. Any use of the term “side-effects” demonstrates a lack of understanding concerning psychotropic drugs. The term “side-effects” is a misnomer because it assumes that psychotropic drugs have some primary therapeutic value, which is simply false. These drugs are not “medications” with “side-effects.” The so-called “side-effects” ARE THE INTENDED EFFECTS of the drugs, but they are called “side-effects” in order to create the illusion that the other effects of the drugs, such as sedation or stimulation, are the primary, intended effects of the drugs.

  • oldhead, we’re on the same team – for antipsychiatry – the ad hominem was the Hannity stuff – and as far as making generalized ideological pronouncements, that’s a good description of what most of the political commentary on MIA is all about – I just try to question all that. I question the vast array of ideological political assertions that are made on this website. Someone’s gotta do it. 🙂

  • Lawrence, you’re not being positive about the possibility of recovery when you deny that from which victims of psychiatry are actually recovering. The damage is real, though not always irreversible. If your goal is to help people to reach their potential, the first step is to stop drugging them.

    However, I believe that you may be onto something in terms of the way in which psychiatry aims to blame the victims of psychiatry or to create a sense that brains are defective, either before or after drugging. The solution is to abolish psychiatry, not to blame the victims of psychiatry. Even though a brain may be harmed terribly by psychiatry, that brain is not defective or “broken.” First psychiatry harms people, and then it attempts to harm the people it has harmed by medicalizing the very torture that they have imposed. It’s as if psychiatry takes a club to a person’s head, or a sledge hammer, and then looks at the damage caused and calls it a “disease” that requires “treatment” by psychiatrists.

    Of course none of this is true. Psychiatry causes the harm in the first place, and it causes more harm by trying to fix the harm that it causes. I’m afraid that to deny any of these facts puts you squarely in the pro-psychiatry corner.

  • “First psychiatry told them that they have permanently defective brain chemistry and hard-wiring, which make them incapable of managing their lives.” And we AGREE that this is nonsense.

    “Then they’re told this was a lie, and that in actuality their brains were fine before the drugging, but now the drugs have permanently damaged their brain chemicals and structure, suggesting once again that they’re incapable of managing their lives.” Ok, who is making this claim? You’re putting two things together that don’t fit. The first part of the sentence is almost true, i.e. psychiatry disseminates lies to people to convince them that their brains are defective or that they have “mental illness.” But I’m not aware of many psychiatrists or pro-psychiatry people who claim that, in actuality, the brains of their victims were fine before drugging.

    Also, a distinction needs to be made between the fact that psychotropic drugs CAUSE damage to the human brain, and the notion that people with damaged brains cannot recover. I’m not sure whose claims you are setting forth here. The truth is that even though psychotropic drugs are known to CAUSE damage to the brain, there is no reason to suppose that such damage is permanent or irreparable, although in many cases it might be.

    You seem to claim that a person’s brain is not effected by psychotropic drugging. This is simply not true. Then in the same breath you claim that victims of psychotropic drugging experience “brain atrophy” from lack of use. You claim that zombified peoples’ brains atrophy from lack of use, when the opposite is probably the case. These are brains working overtime and without adequate pay.

    Again, recovery is possible, but the question is, recovery from what? Victims of psychotropic drugging are not recovering from lack of brain use or reviving dormant brain skills. They are recovering from severe trauma that has been inflicted upon them by psychiatrists. You are not going against the grain here. Such arguments fall right in line with the psychiatric methods that lead to drugging in the first place.

    Uprising is actually, in this rare occasion, correct. The only way that you are going against the grain is by downplaying the real effects of psychotropic drugs.

    For the record, I agree with you that psychiatry attempts to infantilize its victims, and it imposes a sense of learned helplessness on everyone, including victims of psychotropic drugging. The difference is that a person’s brain may incur real harm from drugs. Of course a person may recover from this harm… many commenters in this thread have done so. But if you want to give people hope, you let them know that recovery is possible, even though it might be difficult, and that the damage that they sustained because of psychotropic drugging will eventually heal. A person’s brain may be damaged, but that doesn’t mean that he or she can’t fight back and grow stronger from the experience. Any denial of the danger and harm caused by psychotropic drugs falls squarely into the category of pro-psychiatry.

  • Good point. I believe that most prescribers don’t really know what they have done, just like most victims of drugging hardly realize what has happened to them. The best thing for a former prescriber to do is to recognize the harm that he or she has caused, whether unwittingly or not, and to renounce psychiatry. In fact, a penitent former drugger and jailer may become a great ally to his former victims as well as to many future survivors of psychiatric abuse.

  • Ok. Thanks for clarifying. This helps me to understand your arguments much better. What do you mean that neuroleptics shut down peoples’ brains? Could you please elaborate on what you mean by “shut down”? I’m sorry that you chose to ingest a psychotropic drug or two. Which drug did you test out? Have you ever tried polypharmacy… maybe 7 or 8 drugs at a time? I appreciate your attempt to empathize with those who were labeled as “mentally ill,” but three days of unconsciousness would seem like a pleasant dream compared to years of torture, abuse, drugging, involuntary incarceration, ostracism, and false diagnoses.

    I’m still struggling to understand how you consider that neuroleptic-drugged people don’t suffer from long term damage to their brains. I wouldn’t necessarily call it “chemical” damage, because, like you said, that plays into the hands of psychiatry. But there is ample evidence that psychotropic, neurotoxic drugs damage the brain, both short term and long term. You can’t ingest these poisons without causing damage to the brain, just like you can’t be a heavy drinker or smoker without causing some damage to your brain and lungs. These are drugs, chemically similar to many street drugs, some like cocaine or speed.

    Another problem with your argument is that many people who have been drugged are using their brains much more than the average person. Many doctors are on these drugs. Also, the brains of people who are drugged or who drug themselves are working over-time to compensate for the damage that is being done. Just because a person has been labeled as “mentally ill” and drugged doesn’t mean that he or she stops using his or her brain. In fact, it takes an intense amount of perseverance, concentration, effort and brain power just to withstand the terrible effects of the drugs, and even more so to withdraw and to heal from the damage that they cause. This is not conjecture. It’s scientific fact.

    Porque quedaste de estudiar el español? Verguenza! I’m not sure what your Spanish example proves since you weren’t drugged while studying Spanish or thereafter. If you had been taking 5 or 6 psychotropic drugs at the time, I would be impressed if you could remember “Yo me llamo Lawrence” in Spanish. I’m reading Dante, Virgil, Plato, Tocqueville, and other authors now, but there was a time when I could barely read a sentence from a Dr. Seuss book, and it wasn’t because I had stopped trying. I had to drop out of school because the suffering became so intense. Does that mean my brain was damaged by chemicals? It depends on what you mean by damage, and what you mean by chemicals. Since these drugs are chemicals, and since they do cause damage, I might respond yes to that question. But that would not make me pro-psychiatry at all. Have I recovered? Yes, after 20 years of suffering that you can’t even begin to fathom.

    “But someone who was basically unconscious due to neuroleptics for 30 years never had a chance to use any of their abilities, so all their abilities will of course become lost over time. Doesn’t that make sense?” I think that I see where you are coming from, but no, it doesn’t make sense. These drugs don’t just make people unconscious. I would venture to argue that most people who have been drugged and labeled as “mentally ill” still fight through the pain and try to live decent lives. They might be using more of their abilities than ever while their brains are saturated in neurotoxins. It’s something terrible to contemplate, even for those who imposed this kind of suffering on others without knowing it. They may loose some abilities for a time, maybe even a long time, but that is not due merely to lack of use but to the action of the drugs themselves. There is ample evidence that these neurotoxic, psychotropic drugs alter brain structure and functioning. I like to entertain the notion that since my brain was forced to bear an exceedingly heavy load of toxic chemicals for so long that it actually grew stronger in the process, with more neurons, dendrites, synapses, etc., which is one reason why I’m so smart. But then again, I receive frequent reminders, whether in the form of nightmares or other suffering, that the healing process is much longer and much more tedious than anyone who hasn’t experienced can possibly imagine.

    “You’re willing to question so many myths which authorities proclaimed to be facts, so why not consider that the neurotoxic permanent brain damage claim, despite being promoted by most supposedly anti-psychiatry people, may also be a myth?”

    I don’t just question the myths and hoaxes of psychiatry. I expose them and reject them. I’m afraid that I will have to do the same thing with the theory that you present, as an authority, because akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome are real. I wouldn’t necessarily argue that the brain damage is insuperable, but I guarantee you that it is real, and very difficult to overcome. When a person’s hair turns all white, they bloat up like a balloon, their hands shake uncontrollably, and they look like zombies… something is happening in their brains, and it isn’t pretty.

    Of course I agree with you that psychiatry has no business trying to “heal” the people that it tortures and abuses, but the fact that neurotoxic, psychotropic drugs inflict terrible harm on the brains of innocent human beings cannot be wished away as just another psychiatric myth. There are too many people who stand as living, or dead, witness of this sad truth.

    Ultimately, your argument that psychotropic, neurotoxic drugs don’t cause damage is very helpful to the cause of psychiatry, which is just one reason why those who oppose psychiatry must reject it.

  • This is such a terrible tragedy… par for the course for psychiatry. The difficulty, of course, is that no one who has not experience psychotropic drugging first hand can really understand how these neurotoxic drugs alter the brain, and in turn distort thoughts and behaviors.

    This tragic case of drug-induced murder has caused terrible harm to the perpetrator of the crime as well as the victim. Psychiatry destroys the lives of innocent people, and then in turn it blames the victims. While murder is never justified, and while the insanity plea is another psychiatric lie, it must be acknowledged that there are very real cases of drug induced violence.

    Although the perpetrator of the crime has to live with the awful consequences of the actions, as in this case, he or she is completely innocent. There is a difference between the psychiatric insanity plea that seeks to exculpate the guilty and cases such as this. I am convinced that David, as well as many other victims of psychotropic drugging, including school shooters and Andrea Lubitz of Germanwings infamy, are innocent. Psychiatry and Big Pharma are directly responsible for these horrendous crimes. Psychiatry and Big Pharma try to hide their nefarious deeds, but truth eventually prevail, and justice will eventually be served.

    However, victims of such awful tragedies need to educate themselves on the truth about psychiatry. Victims of psychiatry should not use the jargon of psychiatry to explain their suffering. These neurotoxic drugs are not “antidepressants.” The drug-induced violence is not “psychosis.” There is no such thing as “mental health” or “mental illness.” Drug-induced violence and murder does not constitute a “mental disorder.” These drugs are not “medications.” GSK is just one of the many putrid parts of the dragon of psychiatry.

    I hope that you will make these facts clear to Dr. Oz who seems to have had trouble understanding Dr. Breggin’s eloquent explanations.

  • Even Szasz failed to fully comprehend the damage that is caused by psychotropic drugs. But the biomedical model is not the only culprit here. Long before the rise of the so-called bio-medical model, psychiatry had been inflicting harm on the brains of innocent human beings. Szasz did understand correctly, however, that Laing was not really anti-psychiatry. That is why Szasz wrote an entire book called “Anti-psychiatry: Quackery Squared.” Even though Szasz called for the abolition of psychiatry, he opposed the fake anti-psychiatry of Laing. Thus far I haven’t been able to discern any truly anti-psychiatry arguments in Lawrence’s article either, except for his opposition to the bio-medical model, which is at least a start.

  • Ok. Finally we’re getting to the heart of the matter, and I can see more clearly now. Basically, Lawrence is simply mistaken in his assumptions about the effects, both short term and long term, of psychotropic drugs. Having never been drugged himself, he just doesn’t know what he is talking about. Of course it is true that people can and do recover from the damage that is inflicted by psychotropic drugs, but it is false that psychotropic drugs don’t cause damage. Psychotropic drugs cause severe damage to the human brain. These injuries can heal, but it is a much more difficult and painful process than simply turning on a lamp. The attempt to claim a status as an “antipsychiatrist” while blaming victims of psychotropic drugging for apathy or weak will is disingenuous at best.

  • Thank you for your reply Lawrence. I appreciate it. I am trying very hard to understand, but I confess that this argument is becoming even more confusing. First of all, as I’m sure that you’re already aware, even the use of the term “antidepressant” indicates a pro-psychiatry position. Dr. Breggin’s use of the word “neurotoxins” is a more appropriate appellation for psychotropic drugs.

    In reality, there is no such thing as an “antidepressant.” The word “antidepressant” is a euphemism for a neurotoxic, psychotropic (and what I like to call thanatophoric) drug. As I’m sure that you’re also already aware, the use of the term “mania” indicates a pro-psychiatry position.

    But I’m still having difficulty understanding your point. The fact is that neurotoxic, psychotropic, thanatophoric drugs CAUSE a great deal of suffering and may provoke symptoms that lead to violence and even death. This is just a fact. How exactly this happens is a complex matter, but the simple truth is that these poisonous chemical compounds were DESIGNED, with the approval and backing of psychiatry, to do just that. Even though these drugs were DESIGNED to harm the human brain, they were also DESIGNED to do so while hiding behind the claim that such drugs are a type of “medication.” By this same reasoning we might believe that alcohol, nicotine, or cocaine are types of “medication.” Psychiatry is the driving force behind psychotropic drugging, and psychotropic drugging is one of the main mechanisms whereby innocent people are dragged into the web of psychiatric torture and abuse.

    I understand your point that many people, including innocent children, are being told lies about these drugs. That is true. But the underlying assumption in your argument, if I understand it correctly, is that these kids have real problems, what psychiatry likes to call “mental illness,” that must be addressed in other ways, and not chemically. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I object to this characterization of the vast majority of the victims of psychiatry. Many victims of psychiatry begin as relatively healthy and competent human beings, who, after they are drugged, begin to experience a wide variety of terrible symptoms that are then interpreted as “mental illness.” Of course there are others who experience problems before encountering psychiatry, but psychiatry produces the vast majority of problems either through drugging or by convincing people that they are “mentally ill.” Escape is always possible, but as I mentioned above, it can be very difficult as well.

    I agree with you 100% that all of this talk about so-called “brain disease” or “broken brains” is absolute nonsense. Psychiatry markets madness in many ways. It attempts to convince people that they have “broken brains” or “brain diseases” or “mental illnesses” that are incurable and that must be “treated” with drugs. Sadly, many fall prey to these deceptions.

    If I understand you correctly, you claim that kids are given the false hope that drugs will cure their “broken brains,” and when the drugs fail to accomplish this, the same kids crash because of dashed expectations. This is not quite true, but close to the truth. It is close to the truth because the “broken brain” bit is a lie, and because psychotropic drugs don’t “cure” anything. But it is not quite true because psychotropic drugs inflict REAL damage on the human brain in ways that we have yet to fully understand. The reason why victims of psychiatry crash is not just because of dashed hopes or unrealized expectations. Psychotropic drugs CAUSE severe damage to the brain, and may even lead a victim of drugging to suicide or horrendous acts of violence. Dr. Breggin is actually right about this, although I agree with you that drug induced brain damage does not constitute a psychiatric “disease.”

    If I have understood your argument correctly, you oppose biological psychiatry and the so-called medical model, not only in its original form, but as it applies to post-drug victims of psychiatry. The point that I believe that you need to clarify regards the effects of the drugs themselves. While it is true that there is no such thing as a “chemical imbalance” in the brain or a “broken brain,” it is also true that psychotropic drugs CAUSE terrible suffering that may manifest itself in a variety of ways, including unwanted thoughts and feelings. This should not be interpreted as “faulty wiring” or bad “brain chemistry,” but psychotropic drugs do act on the human brain in terrible ways that have yet to be fully understood.

    I’m still not quite sure what you mean by your “latter theory,” or by “anti-psychiatry.” It would be a very pro-psychiatry position to claim that psychotropic drugs do not cause harm. I hope that is not your position, but I’m having difficulty discerning what you mean. Thank you in advance for your efforts to clarify your meaning.

  • Lawrence, with all due respect, I don’t think that anyone is really arguing with the idea that people can overcome their circumstances or that they are capable of healing. Yes. People are resilient. Yes. There are many people who have overcome adverse circumstances. There are even a few people who have managed to escape the foul clutches of psychiatry, and to heal from the traumatic abuse that was forced upon them, including neurotoxic drugging. I also don’t think that there has been a negative reaction to different, non-socially accepted ideas.

    If I understand your arguments correctly, Lawrence, biological psychiatry profits from a culture in which learned helplessness is pervasive. Correct me if I am wrong. If I am interpreting your arguments correctly, it appears that you claim that biological psychiatry, or the medical model, is simply capitalizing on the passivity and weakness of the vulnerable in society, including those who are rendered vulnerable by psychotropic drugging and psychiatric labeling. If my understanding of your arguments is correct, there may be some truth to them, but it’s just one small fraction of the problem. The menace of psychiatry is much greater than the biological or medical model, and victims of psychiatry come from all walks of life, not only the docile and subservient, whether drugged or otherwise.

    If I understand your arguments about drugs and so-called “chemical imbalances,” you seem to claim that there are “anti-psychiatrists” who promote the “chemical imbalance” hoax, not in its original form, but in a new, supposedly iatrogenic form. I’m not doubting that you have encountered such imposters, but I would be curious to know just who these supposed “anti-psychiatrists” are. They certainly don’t represent antipsychiatry properly understood.

    Furthermore, a distinction needs to be made between the false assertion that a iatrogenic “chemical imbalance” in the brain constitutes a psychiatric disease, and the true statement that neurotoxic, psychotropic drugs inflict terrible harm on innocent individuals, harm that causes horrendous suffering, and sometimes even death. We can reject the false notion that there is some iatrogenic “chemical imbalance” that resembles the original “chemical imbalance” hoax while still recognizing the reality that many have been tortured, maimed, and even killed in the name of psychiatric “medicine” and “treatment.”

    If I understand your arguments correctly, you oppose biological psychiatry and some cohort of self-proclaimed “anti-psychiatrists” because they facilitate the learned helplessness of vulnerable members of society, including those who have been drugged and led to believe that their psychiatric abuse and torture is indicative of some supposedly real psychiatric “disease.” Am I reading you right? If so, I applaud you for your opposition to biological psychiatry, and for correctly pointing out that even iatrogenic harm caused by drugs cannot be resolved under the purview of psychiatry.

    However, it is simply untrue that biological psychiatry or fake “anti-psychiatrists” are the only culprits. Those who truly oppose psychiatry reject psychiatry as a whole. They don’t hold on to some fantasy that there is a way to reform or rethink psychiatry, neither do they entertain the illusion that iatrogenic harm produces psychiatric “disease.”

    Are people capable of healing? Of course. Can people overcome their circumstances? Naturally. Frederick Douglass and a fortunate few escaped chattel slavery. Victor Frankl and other resilient souls survived the Holocaust. But does that mean that there was a good form of slavery or Naziism that ought to have been preserved? I don’t think so. Psychiatry, a pseudo-scientific system of slavery, like chattel slavery and Naziism, must be eliminated. Biological psychiatry is just one particularly pernicious manifestation of an entirely corrupt enterprise. The whole dragon of psychiatry must be slain. If we attempt to amputate a limb or to scrape off a few scales, there is always the danger that such appendages will grow back.

  • Lawrence, there are many things about the more liberal leaning antipsychiatrists that I can appreciate, including their concern for the poor and the vulnerable of society. These are definitely issues that need to be addressed. However, I am reject the progressive ideologies that feed into the psychiatric system. Thanks in advance for your response.