Tuesday, January 22, 2019

Comments by Scintilla

Showing 22 of 22 comments.

  • The first thing I replied to you was: “IT SOUNDS LIKE…” you’re suspecting a conspiratorial connection between the psychiatric treatment of you and the guy you knew in Amsterdam.

    You said not entirely, I said what do you mean? You said there might be a connection between the guy in Amsterdam being the supergrass, and your mention of Amsterdam being kept off your UK psychiatric records.

    Ok I see now that in my original reply to you, I referred to the drugging of you rather than the not including your mentions of Amsterdam in your notes. I wasn’t intentionally not mentioning specifically the notes issue as well, which is why I didn’t understand your reply – I sort of meant that when I referred to ‘cover up’, but I’d jumped ahead to the horrible drug treatment of you.

    Maybe actually I was a bit thrown by the idea of the consultant copying (with omissions) the junior doctor’s notes and signing them himself. I think I had questions about that but it was too much to ask about, like how you know his notes were a copy of the original doctors, how sure are you (based on the fact that anyone’s perceptions/memories are not as reliable as we like to think, and not knowing your mental state at the time) that he didn’t see you initially perhaps in addition to the junior doctor, how have they purported to explain it, stuff like that.

    Presumably you are including the drugging as something the same psychiatrist then did as part of the same conspiracy (I use the term neutrally), though? I’m still not sure, though, if you’re saying the claimed basis for that treatment was a type of condition entirely unrelated to accusations of conspiracies.

  • Fiachra,

    “You reinterpretated what I had stated inaccurately” – I still don’t understand how, can’t you clarify?

    “and then went on to suggest “mental illness” in me – not quite, I referred to something that psychiatrists might diagnose as a paranoid disorder. I didn’t say that would be my view, even if that were the case, did I? Did I? Does nuance not matter to you in making accusations, or in suggesting I’m drunk in what you presumably think is a matching insult?

    “In the final paragraph I carefully stated that the Kevin McGrady case might have been “corrupted”. In my opinion anyone could make a similar statement about any similar:- 1.”Supergrass” Case
    2. Conducted In a Non Jury Court – 3. Without being considered Mentally Ill.”

    That the McGrady case might have been corrupted is only one of the things you stated. I totally agree with that possibility, as I already said, and I totally agree with your points about not incurring prejudice against yourself for simply considering or alleging that. But that’s not all you said, is it? Is it? You suggested that you were psychiatrically detained and drugged after telling them about Amsterdam, not because you supposedly met criteria for a supposed disorder, but because the senior psychiatrists were involved in a conspiracy to cover up something unknown that presumably McGrady told you. I merely pointed out that it’s difficult to tell from what you said whether they might have had grounds under the criteria to detain/drug you.

  • pdeliva (Shola) – it’s not a technical term? In paranoid PD? Or until recently paranoid type of schizophrenia etc? Used in defining delusional disorders perhaps? I don’t think it’s necessary or helpful to appear to be challenging stigma by pretending these things (the diagnoses and possibly some partially related reality) don’t exist?

    Fiachra – Thank you for acknowledging some point I made, though I’m aggrieved that you’re still threatening a lack of politeness. I referred to it being difficult to tell from the account you gave, whether you have reasonable grounds for the links you suspect or whether you have some bias/motive towards believing it, because there are huge gaps in or questions about it, such as what Kevin McGrady (I assume) even said to you, but you presented it as a logical sequence. All the questions necessary to clarify that can’t possibly be asked here on this thread about conferences, can they? You said you talked to psychiatrists about Amsterdam and ended up drugged for months, though one said you were mentally sound. How do I know what to make of that?

  • pdesilva (shola) – this is not an unrelated argument, can you not see that? I’m not sure what you mean by the thread being for those very important abstract discussions by ‘we, as psychiatrists’. Kind regards.

    Fiachra – I’m still not sure what I missed in your original post, indeed I summed up what I thought you were alleging so you could correct me as I wasn’t totally sure. But yes I am using ‘mental’ terms, is that not allowed?? Seems to me there’s a serious problem in these circles with conflating talk of ‘mental illness’ with talk of anything psychological. Judging what’s going on is for every one of us a partly psychological process, how can it be otherwise? Does antipsychiatry amount to anti-talking-about-our-minds? Is antipsychiatry in collusion with a social arrogance about intellect and a social stigma against psychological discusions?

  • You’ve again not clarified your original accusations that I missed something in your original post, now you’ve said that I expressed unrealistic shock at what it suggested when in fact i wasn’t shocked at all as I know how much corruption goes on and what I said was it’s a disturbing possibility, and now accusing me of dishonesty etc. I said that psychiatrists claim to treat misplaced ‘paranoia’. And yes now I have asked whether you are superhuman or deluded as to not seeming to think you could possibly be wrong? This is why I suggested you go over this with someone who can support a safe enquiry by you of the situation, not post it to strangers under unrelated posts and then make unclarified accusations at them instead of helping yourself, which btw is not good for my feelings/wellbeing either.

  • You again haven’t clarified or taken back your accusations that I missed something previously, and no what I suggested was that your suspicions might be turn out to be mistaken – if you think you couldn’t possibly be mistaken, especially about such a complex issue with lots of gaps as you chose to recount it here off topic, then you’re either superhuman or you have some more general delusion?

  • I don’t see what I missed originally and now I don’t see how I misrepresented you, but if you were to explain then I’d apologise.

    “attempted to make suggestions of mental illness” – well I referred to “misplaced ‘paranoia’ that psychiatrists do actually claim to treat.”

    People do sometimes get overly suspicious about possible conspiracies relating to themselves – it seems to be quite a human tendency and potentially a useful one. And of course psychiatrists sometimes try to treat that as if it’s a medical condition.

  • Fiachra, it’s not showing a reply button for your latest comment so I’ll just say here

    “If I can substantiate that I came from the same address as “the person referred” to, in Amsterdam in 1980, and that mention of Amsterdam is kept completely off the UK records – then I don’t see anything too strange with the idea that the two might be connected (considering the circumstances). Do you get it?”

    – I don’t think I missed that implication in what you were originally suggesting, and I don’t think it’s too strange an idea. I do think it would still only be one fragment of a complex puzzle with a lot of questions still to address about documentation, memory, possible links between people and corruption.

  • It sounds like you’re suspecting that the reason the London police took your passport, and/or the british and british-linked psychiatric authorities drugged you, was to cover up something that possibly McGrady might have accidentally let slip to you (early intelligence links). That’s a disturbing idea, and I see that at least some of McGrady’s testimony was dubious. Though it’s very difficult to differentiate from the sort of misplaced ‘paranoia’ that psychiatrists do actually claim to treat. I can only think it might be necessary for you to examine both possibilities carefully with someone able to support that process without force.

  • Do you think the Uni of Toronto went along with this on the ‘academic freedom’ argument because of the scandal over the David Healey affair a few years ago relating to that big pharma psychiatrist shutting him down for critiquing SSRIs and neuroleptics? Was that issue leveraged with them actually or they might have decided it for themselves for PR reasons or genuine change?

  • Excellent analysis thank you, both scientifically detailed and clearly written. So many researchers involved in the article yet such basic errors already acknowledged, and I will be interested to see what conclusions their promised critiques amount to – and whether The Lancet will stand by its supposed reputation and actually publish something to all the media outlets who inadvertently misled so many over this.

  • I feel it’s a serious leap from looking at how drugs can make things worse to declaring whatever percentage of psychiatric patients ‘not genuine’. It’s similar to how this meeting was introduced with a claim that many depressed people just don’t realise they’re not meant to be happy, which e.g. people during the world wars knew. That’s actually a very specific hypothesis about a psychological causation of depression in peace-time culture and requires additional evidence than what was actually covered in the meeting that the meeting was meant to be about.

  • Yeah a guy from the audience (from Lancet psychiatry?) pointed out such conditions were around then too. This research found people in war-torn countries were 6% more likely to have depression http://www.science20.com/news_articles/no_surprise_world_war_ii_had_consequences_physical_mental_health-128060

    But I think Flynn’s point was that war-time folk didn’t expect to be happy and so weren’t medicalised, as he fears might happen to his grandkids. But then again someone pointed out that e.g. combat veterans were very much being medicalised including at the temporarily-relocated Maudsley. In fact ‘treated’ with all kinds of horrendous ‘physical methods’ as I recall, including by the evangelical William Sargant & his ally Eliot Slater (who had worked at the Munich Institute of Psychiatry until the late 1930s under proto-Nazi Ernst Rudin and approved of their psychiatric eugenic theories if not their methods!)

  • That’s pretty offensive – NHS patients don’t transfer the cost on to their neighbours, it’s simply a service funded by general taxation like many others. Plus there is a small fee for each prescription. The incentive for it to slow down is that it costs a lot of taxpayer money for very little benefit (or none beyond placebo, plus harms) – but not as much as providing proper mental health services and economic inclusiveness, I guess. Also the NHS and many doctors are hand in glove with Big Pharma.

  • I just had a quick look for the full texts of the suicide notes of the 2008 Finland spree killer Saari, that you mention, but I couldn’t see them. For sure The Daily Mail can’t be trusted. Did see somewhere that the police wouldn’t say that a motive was established, so I don’t know if those little quotes establish it.

    I’m not sure about this article’s conjecture about Holmes’s motive either. It doesn’t seem that he just killed anyone – he chose a specific movie and dressed up for it. He booby trapped his home but then tipped off the police about it. He was in communication with a psychiatrist who he apparently told about some risks of violence. The conjecture that he couldn’t meet academic/social expectations and therefore became homicidal, seems to just beg the question of why he in particular had such an extreme reaction, and/or whether that was due to the fact he was struggling with bizarre delusions/hallucinations or whatever.

  • Trying to whitewash the possible role of psychiatric drugs in violence is not particularly lively. The FDA and numerous regulators around the world have acknowledged that SSRIs can sometimes cause increases in self-harm or aggression/disinhibition, especially in youth.

    And they are often casually prescribed without any real psychological-social support or guidance.

    Having said that I don’t agree with Healy’s views on ECT (or for that matter his speculation about insulin coma ‘therapy’).