Thursday, May 23, 2019

Comments by -Anonymous

Showing 337 of 337 comments.

  • I must say the sheer number of 2013 publication dates I’m seeing all over this page is impressive. It’s only April yet Thomas’ piece and his comments are littered with 2013 journal articles. I love this.

  • “So they opened mental health courts, which is exactly the right thing to do…””

    Apartheid justice. The beliefs of biopsychiatry BUILT IN to the very system of government. The biopsychaitric theocratic state. Do you swear on the psychiatric bible to fit the label, the whole label and nothing but the label? So help me Allen Frances.

    “The idea here is if you are mentally ill we’re not going to treat you just like everyone else”

    The idea here is that if a quack, acting in his capacity as government agent labels you mentally ill, you are now a brain, a created less equal brain, needing to be changed. Brains don’t have rights, only people do, and when you’re no longer a person, just a brain, anything the mouth attached to the former person says, is just a noise. Trying to convince the government agents you’re not a diseased brain, that’s the word salad of a diseased brain.

    Eagleman and his ilk won’t be stopped by their peers or by government. It is going to take the people to stop this march toward psychiatric apartheid. Tragically, the last time the people stopped anything happening was when? Decades ago?

    “Really, I wonder: can ‘civilization’ and our planet sustain the impact of yet another “Decade of the Brain”?”

    Absolutely. And absolutely terrifying. What a brilliant comment Jonah. And thank you for telling us Clinton will launch DSM 5 I didn’t know that. Psychiatry truly is a state religion.

  • “A minority of patients is angry about the initial commitment and stays angry even after they have gotten better — sometimes feeling abused and humiliated for life.”

    – Allen Frances, 2012, in his apologia for forced psychiatry. In it, we are to assume Frances has done a survey, or that such a survey could be done, and we are to assume he’s in a position to be using quantitative words like “a minority”. We are to assume “gotten better”, implies they were “sick” in the first place, and we are to assume that objective fact that people are stripped naked, held down and forcibly drugged gives rise to merely a “feeling” of abuse and humiliation. Then there’s the fact that the chilling effect coercion has on the public speech of forced psychiatry survivors precludes ANYONE knowing the true quantity of lives destroyed or “benefited” from forced psychiatry. It’s like a Stasi officer claiming “a minority of people are angry they were ratted out by informants, but most come to be thankful for being led back onto the path of righteousness”. Trusting a coercive psychiatrist to lay out the “results” of coercive psychiatry is just ridiculous.

    http://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/08/08/allen-frances/a-clinical-reality-check/

    Allen Frances, found the courage, from the safety of a well-funded retirement, almost 20 years after he helped unleash DSM 4 on the world, to become a supposed “critic” of DSM 5.

    Allen Frances remains an apologist for his profession having the power to force itself on people without consent. Apparently abused and humiliated people are just the necessary collateral damage for crafting what he sees as “success stories”. Some lives need to be destroyed by forced psychiatry to “save” other lives. This is how most apologists of forced psychiatry think.

    Anybody can be “protected from themselves” without some quack profession of brain meddlers remodeling their brain function by force. And society can be protected from violent criminals without recourse to the quack brain re-modelers too. Allen Frances is a person who is willing to gamble with people’s lives against their wishes, if you wind up abused and humiliated for life, or thankful, well that’s a chance he’s willing to take, after all, he doesn’t pay the price… he just wanted to “help” when he took your human rights away using commitment laws. He’s on record as having personally signed off hundreds of people losing the right to own their own bodies even though he never proved anything was diseased in their bodies.

    He’s no “ally”. In fact, there is reason to believe had psychiatry chosen to extend the shelf life of DSM 4 for another 20 years instead of creating the new King James version of the psychiatric bible, the former King would have stayed in retirement.

    I agree with CannotSay2013 about so called forensic psychiatry, the merger of quackery and the criminal justice system, and more terrifying than any prison cell on earth.

  • “In private, many psychiatric researchers are starting to acknowledge that madness has been a barren field for scientific inquiry, but they are reluctant to admit this in public because their livelihoods are at stake, or (in the case of pharma) profit and dividends.”

    This is made all the more morally reprehensible by the fact that the same researcher class arms government with the justifications for the brutal, draconian forced drugging of both the psychiatric gulags and the home forced drugging (AOT, CTO) atrocities. Anyone who puts their livelihood above the human rights of others is morally bankrupt.

  • “When I think of the work that has gone into rooting these things out of mental health services and to find that they are seriously being considered on this site of all places…

    I don’t know what to say…. ”

    For people that need a refresher on the human rights at play in forced psychiatry.

    1. The human right to bodily integrity.

    2. The human right to freedom of movement.

    Handcuffs – Freedom of movement.

    Shackles – Freedom of movement.

    Solitary Confinement – Freedom of movement.

    Physical restraint (held by people) – Freedom of movement.

    Mechanical restraint (restraint chairs, straight jackets) – Freedom of movement.

    _________________________

    The death penalty – Bodily Integrity

    Female Genital Mutilation – Bodily Integrity

    Male Genital Mutilation – Bodily Integrity

    A bullet in the head – bodily integrity

    A taser to the chest – bodily integrity

    A beating – bodily integrity

    Waterboarding – bodily integrity

    Sexual rape – bodily integrity

    Forced sterilization – bodily integrity

    Forced abortion – bodily integrity

    Forced electroshock – bodily integrity

    Forced lobotomy – bodily integrity

    Forced drugging – bodily integrity.

    _________________________

    Forced removal of the human right to freedom of movement, is an infinitely lighter touch on a person’s life than shattering their right to bodily integrity.

    The UN Special Rapporteur calls forced drugging torture. The psychiatric survivor movement (who have survived having their human right to bodily integrity ripped away), call it torture.

    “When I think of the work that has gone into rooting these things out of mental health services”

    When I think of that “work”, that so-called improvement, shifting from taking away freedom of movement, NOT entering bodies, to whitewashing the wholesale removal of bodily integrity with widespread forced drugging, even in people’s own homes, I am disgusted.

    Oh I’m aware people who work in the “services” consider the move to biological violence, hidden violence, horrendous levels of molecular, constant, 24/7 intracranial violence, to be an improvement on mere freedom of movement curtailment.

    They are wrong if think shifting to chemical violence against the detainees is more “humane”.

    We in a fight for our right to bodily integrity, against people who think the image of a man tied to a chair is MORE distasteful than the wholesale rape of biology. Up is down and down is up in the Alice in Wonderland that is the world of forced psychiatric quackery.

    “When I think of the work that has gone into rooting these things out of mental health services”

    These freedom of movement curtailments were simply REPLACED with things that are 100,000 times more invasive. That is NOTHING to be proud of.

  • Torrey is the world’s leading apologist for forced psychiatry. If societies worldwide hadn’t been treating those labeled “mental patients” like second class citizens for hundreds of years, and if there wasn’t an ever-present supply of people willing to carry out forced psychiatry, Torrey would have less success in his desire to make it illegal for people with psychiatric labels to own their own bodies.

    The banality of the evil of forced psychiatry, the desensitization of the public to psychiatry’s creation of a class seen as a biological underclass unworthy of human rights has much more to do with Torrey’s success in his quest to expand forced psychiatry than the donors.

    In Nazi Germany we were life unworthy of life, and there was no short supply of well-intentioned Third Reich psychiatric nurses who were nice to their kids and their pets, willing to step up to the plate and lead people labeled “schizophrenic” out to the mobile gas vans that would come to state hospitals, “for their own good”.

    Today, we are considered life unworthy of rights, and Torrey and his ilk, along with hundreds of thousands of functionaries in forced psychiatry systems worldwide, ensure those rights can be removed from us “for our own good”.

  • “The child cannot give informed genuine consent to giving up a kidney to the brother because they lack capacity to make that decision”

    A child is a child. Children don’t have the legal rights adults have. The constant analogies of those labeled “mentally ill” to demented old people, locked in paralyzed people, and children, is getting old.

    “The parallels with date rapists imo don’t really add anything to clarify the issues at hand. The motivation of the date rapist is their own gratification. I’m taking it as a given that even actions we disagree with are not motivated by that sort of evil intent.”

    The parallels with date rapists exist. Both drug people whose brains haven’t proven diseased just to control them. Evil and gratification don’t always go hand in hand. Evil and intent don’t always go hand in hand. All fanatics who believe they are justified in targeting groups, rounding them up, and “fixing them”, believe they are justified. I don’t doubt the “pure intentions” of the fundamentalist anti-gay “pray the gay away” fanatics, likewise I don’t doubt the “pure intentions” of a psychiatry true believer “here to medicate” people they consider to be literally “ill”.

    You think holding someone or restraining someone for a while is the lesser evil than stripping from them the right to bodily integrity, to own their own brain, I’m afraid we are always going to disagree on that.

    “But if you are saying that you prefer restraint then I accept that is your preferred option”

    It’s not merely a “preferred option” sir, it’s a LIMIT on government power, and I want my preferred limit to be the law of the land. And I’m assuming you want your preferred option, drugging, to be the law. Your call involves infinitely more invasive government action.

    What is a “mental health service”? You mean where the government, kind of like a state religion says unwanted behavior, thoughts and feelings are a “health” issue, and passes laws that discriminate against people with psychiatric labels, laws that terrorize them and deny them choice?

    If you don’t believe in my right choose, in terms of what I put in body, you’re my political enemy, for life.

    Anyone who would ever enter the body of a stranger against their will without a bona fide iron clad medical reason is not welcome in my life, in my home, in my family, and especially not welcome in my brain. Like I say, we try and make this clear to those work in “services” when we say no.

    I could never live with myself if I worked in a forced psychiatry job. Never. Total moral compromise.

    “There are for sure people who work in mental health services who probably shouldn’t , whose motivations might be more suspect than others. Certainly some of them we might both call “sick”. Weeding these people out of the system and how to go about it is another matter. ”

    A byzantine bureaucratic government “system” founded on force, compulsion and coercion and the unearned monopoly of psychiatric ideology is a dangerous and destructive thing. The component cogs in the machine, the staff, are really just the oil that greases a machine designed for one thing only, to deliver psychiatric labels and psychiatric drugs into the lives and bodies of those targeted. The system is neither designed to, nor is it equipped to deliver anything but labels and drugs. The occasional true “human service” might be provided within that framework.

    Just as any soldier in a war didn’t create the war machine, I don’t blame any one forced psychiatry worker for the system, in fact I pity any forced psychiatry worker misled enough to think they could make the world a better place by working in a system of violence. I pity anyone gullible enough to embark on a career that began with psychiatric textbooks and the lies therein.

    I don’t know what desensitization it takes to witness and carry out forced drugging and not vomit and be haunted by the same nightmares the victims of it are. But I do know those who carry out this violence against us will justify it to the hilt, firing a Gatling gun of justifications and thought experiments to try and dodge the fundamental inhumanity of forced drugging. Denial. After all, if forced psychiatry workers admitted they’d carried out gross human rights abuses with their own hands, earned blood money, where would that leave them? Maybe as distressed as some of those they label “patients”.

    We are fighting for our human rights. If human rights abusers didn’t abuse our human rights we wouldn’t have to. If every syringe wielding forced psychiatry worker decided not to come to work, a lot of us would feel a lot safer. It’s not “bad apples” working in forced psychiatry, it’s a demonstration of how a system can get humans to carry out violence against their fellow man and feel justified in doing so. Something to be seen throughout human history.

    It’s sad that we have to fight for our right to own our own bodies in the face of violent ideologues who insist on using force to smash our will and imposing their beliefs on us using legal force. But we will continue to fight so that one day nobody’s brain gets assaulted in the name of this quackery.

    I know many former forced psychiatry workers who have found a clearer conscience upon leaving coercion behind and moving into working in purely voluntary settings. When one is old and on their death bed they want to be sure they’ve done more good than harm in their lives. Forced psychiatry workers have VICTIMS. Literal victims, hidden out there in the community, assaulted, battered, tortured, traumatized for life. I’m sure glad I don’t have victims. I sleep sounder at night knowing I never forced drugs on a stranger.

  • I agree with every single word of Jonah’s above comment.

    Particularly this…

    “I believe that, *almost* inevitably, he would *not* find such care in any prison “hospital” workers.”

    Someone wants to, feels they have the right to, change the behavior of the face punching woman. The problem is not a medical problem. Any old date rapist can drug a targeted person’s consciousness into submission, it is not rocket science. It doesn’t take years of medical school to stick a needle full of tranquilizer drugs in a person whose behavior is frowned upon. Just as any marksman can shoot a tranquilizer dart into a Rhino on safari.

    The use of chemicals to restrain human beings or animals whose behavior doesn’t suit, does not represent the treatment of a medical condition. In humans it represents an expedient trashing of the individual’s human rights.

    I’m with you Jonah, although they have restraint chairs these days instead of straight jackets. I think people are visual and they seem to be offended by the sight of someone getting tied to a chair. I agree, it’s nasty stuff. But simply deploying invisible (to the observer) tranquilizer drug molecules to their dirty work of SEIZING the BRAIN (neuro-leptic), seems to give the controllers of strangers a feeling that they aren’t doing violence to a person. Violence against the consciousness of others seems easier to swallow, because after the initial syringe stabbing it ceases to be a “vulgar display of power”. As the inescapable forced drugging nightmare bubbles away beneath the skull, the attackers can look at their quarry and not see a degrading sight of a man strapped to a chair. This makes them feel better perhaps, but I believe it is a false consciousness to deny the rape of another human being’s consciousness.

    Having government agents force the medico-legal status of an unconscious person on a conscious person, to legally enable government brain meddling, IS the Orwellian nightmare that it sounds like it is.

    There exists in this world a small number of fundamentalist christian anti gay psychologists who carry out so called “reparative therapy”. Gays rail against these quacks and rightly so. I know what it is like to have well-intentioned yet fundamentally misguided quacks think they posses the “help that I need”.

    Almost every single tenet and foundation upon which my psychiatric “helpers” based their alleged insights into my situation, is something I would like the freedom to run as far away from as gays have the right to be protected from unwanted interaction with the antigay “reparative therapy” quacks.

    Sometimes I really do feel like I’m being stalked by cult members, with massive legal power to coerce me, and I imagine how gays feel when they are stalked by those fundamentalist self appointed saviors.

    It is truly nothing to envy. It’s a wonder any of us get out alive. Instead of being chased by quacks with bibles in their hands telling us we can pray the gay away, we are chased by quacks with psychiatric bibles in their hands telling us it’s just fine that there are laws that see our biology forcibly split open to be desecrated by their guesswork pseudomedical meddling. How anyone can still justify nonconsensual drug-based psychiatry after reading the wealth of debunking on this site, is just staggering. But, such is messianic blind faith. Religious extremists of all stripes, including those in the Church of Psychiatry, have always felt the right to have a claim on the bodies and lives of perfect strangers. The desire to meddle, to “help”, even those who don’t see their “help” as help or want their help, dies hard. Tragically most of them see absolutely nothing wrong with forcing their belief system and drugs on strangers using force. Neuronal terrorists, literally. Total indoctrinated fanatics. How else could they dehumanize us so?

  • ” a person can have capacity to make a decision about one thing but not another at the same time. ”

    How is that? They can’t find the words to talk about the topic of what to have for breakfast or the topic of taking major tranquilizer drugs? Or is just that those more powerful than them legally refuse to listen to the words they speak on one topic or another?

    Comparing paralyzed locked in people to the millions of people subjected to tranquilizer drug social control under the guise of psychiatry? No.

  • Can I just paste what I already said, when I sided with restraint? Do you not even read what I said?

    ““So far you have chosen the do nothing option and the person is still hitting themselves. Doing nothing isn’t ethical it is just abrogating responsibility.”

    Forced drugging isn’t ethical. Nobody has a “responsibility” to invasively blockade someone’s neurotransmission. Especially no quack who doesn’t even demonstrate disease of neurotranmission. I already chose an option, if you believe in the government having a self-harm prevention squad of some description, I said don’t enter their body, touch the outside of it if you feel you must.”

    And then you said:

    ” I’m reluctantly recommending medication.”

    These ah, dopaminergic system blockade drugs you refer to as “medication”, what medical disease do they correct? On the basis of what series of leaps of faith in psychiatry’s THEORIES would they come to be seen as a gold standard “treatment”?, and given the “medication” corrects no known disease process and carries risks in the extreme, how do you justify putting those drugs in someone else’s body when they have not been afforded the opportunity for informed consent?

    These leaps of faith to the “medication” of problem behaviors that aren’t even proven to be medical in nature, how do they stand in comparison to an unconscious person later thanking a doctor for you giving them a blood transfusion when they were DEMONSTRABLY having a medical emergency like bleeding to death?

    If you’re pro non-consensual drugging, fine, be pro non-consensual drugging.

    “If you can’t address the distinction between medicating/drugging with out consent and medicating and drugging by force a person with capacity”

    If you seriously, seriously believe that “capacity”, IE deciding who’s screams for mercy get listened to before the needle goes in and whose get pushed to the side, can be trusted to be determined by government agents behind closed doors in a hospital in situ, without enormous collateral damage, and you seriously believe tranquilizer drugging someone constitutes a “medical” act of “medication”, then I can’t help you sir. If it starts with restraint and ends with a drug in someone’s body, it constitutes forced drugging. If the person has their right to say no and be listened to, there right to pull away, to run away from people who want to put drugs in her body, that constitutes forced drugging.

    Drunk, incapacitated people in the realm of sexual violence law can take action for date rape if someone enters their body against their will. There is a presumption of no consent when it comes to people’s bodies being entered for no medical reason.

    It should be not be assumed that any government representative has the moral right to enter the body of someone to “protect them from themselves”, when not entering their body, when restraining them, will bring about behavioral control without the massive invasiveness of the government entering their brain function and treating their consciousness like something that doesn’t deserve to exist in this world.

    It should be illegal for the government, or anyone acting under government law to perform brain altering interventions on people for the sole purpose of behavioral control.

    You may call behavioral control “medication”, or a “medical” act, but given you’re unable to demonstrate a biomedical disease in the biology you’re commandeering, it is a “medical” act in name only.

    Because if plying the face puncher with drugs is a medical act, then a date rapist slipping a roofie into a woman’s drink is practicing medicine. Both druggers of people without consent wish to bend a human being to their ends. Both druggers of people without consent, see problem behavior, wish to change it, and see the other human being’s blood/brain barrier as nothing sacred. Both don’t feel they are crossing a moral, ethical and human rights line.

    If you feel any stranger dragged before you has forfeited the right to their brain being inviolable, then I can’t help you.

    I will say again, and repeat like a fourth time just so it sinks in, I did say restraint would be better than meddling with the person’s brain, if anything.

    I’ll take Patch Adams or anyone else restraining me, I’ll take being tied to a chair, locked in a room, over some biological rapist entering my brain any day of my life. And that includes biologically raping me when I am asleep, half conscious, labeled as having “capacity” by a biased quack, labeled as not having “capacity” by a biased quack, my body is inviolable in the absence of a bona fide medical emergency.

    Such an emergency would no doubt involve being treated by real doctors who actually examine bodies and biomarkers, etc. ie: not psychiatry.

    Until the day psychiatry’s BS chicanery of claiming rapid human wrangling, behavioral control, tranquilization, social control, magically becomes a bona fide medical activity, that is, when the word “medication” that you use represents the genuine practice of evidence based medical treatment of a biomedical disease, people who wrap themselves in the flag of the psychiatric lexicon to justify entering bodies without consent will not have a leg to stand on.

    If drugging the face puncher woman is a medical activity, then the police tasering her is a medical activity. Both achieve the desired end of of cessation of the problem behavior, by means of invasive entering and altering of the physiology that isn’t diseased. Neither are medical activities. Both are invasive, disgusting, unnecessary acts of disrespecting the fundamental human rights of the target.

  • Jonah,

    “You see Patch as a medical dictator???

    In my view, that is exactly what medical-coercive Psychiatry offers us (thousands of dictators, called psychiatrists).”

    Don’t forget psychiatry’s version of “nurses”, and social workers, too. It is bizarre, I dare say to call a doctor who who only engages in consensual relations, like Patch, a “dictator”.

  • Jonah,

    “No is ever completely “lacking capacity” — unless or until s/he is rendered fully unconscious.”

    Isn’t it ironic that that penalty for being caught in contempt of psychiatrist in a psychiatrist facility is being forcibly rendered unconscious by forced drugging?

    There is no legally binding advance directive that can protect anybody from any forced psychiatry laws that exist anywhere in the entire English speaking world. Even so, presumed consent for biopsychiatry when biopsychiatry is harmful quackery, is an absolutely ridiculous situation. We need to move away from this idea that psychiatry has somehow earned the reserve power to enter the bodies of citizens.

    What is bogus in this whole bogus capacity debate is the people who work in forced psychiatry regularly demonstrate they are willing to completely ignore the targeted person’s express wishes, clearly articulated, in situ.

    In every non-legally-binding JOKE of an advance directive scheme I’ve ever seen introduced, psychiatry is there whispering in legislators’ ears to make sure the advance directives are easily overturnable by psychiatry, what else can we expect from a profession that was founded on coercion?

  • “You can inject all the invective you like but I would suggest that perhaps what you really don’t like is that the situation doesn’t fit into the simple narrative that drugs are always evil.”

    You can use the word “invective” twice, I don’t see where it was. Please cite the invective. What I really don’t like, is living in fear of forced drugging laws.

    “Secondly it’s nothing like a ticking time bomb because you have the person in front of you hitting themselves.”

    Oh so the person isn’t in danger of injuring themselves too badly then?

    Involuntary labor relations, involuntary sexual relations, involuntary psychiatry relations, are always evil. You can call basic human rights for all humans a “simple narrative” all you like. Some things in morality are that simple. Either you are a slave, or you are free.

    “Given the number of deaths that occur during and following restraint trying to pretend that restraint is risk free isn’t imo taking the problem seriously. That’s even before getting into the even trickier area of solutions that take into account gender and cultural appropriateness, both of which you studiously ignore.”

    Like I said, most restraints happen because a psychiatric staffer has decided someone will be subjected to forced drugging. I acknowledge these deaths, mourn them, and how you got to “pretending restrain is risk free” is anybody’s guess. I have talked about the risk of restraint, in several other comments. I know that many deaths from restraint would be prevented had thugs in mental hospitals not got it in their heads that after someone saying no to pills, they had the right to restrain and inject. You want invective? You’ve accused Patch Adams of being a dictator in this thread, you’ve accused me of “studiously ignoring” something I merely ignored.

    You bring up the “cultural appropriateness” (whatever that means) of restraint. You bring up gender relations in relation to your ethics of protecting people from themselves. You bring this up seemingly in contrast to forced drugging, a procedure that requires forced nakedness! Every day, women are stripped butt naked by male psychiatric nurse thugs and injected, yet you want Jonah and I to formulate some cultural sensitivity panel and if we ignore you its a “studious” ignoring? I don’t think so. You were the one who posed Patch Adams holding a woman. Is that worse than male psych “nurses” stripping a woman of her pants and injecting her in the buttocks with brain disabling drugs?

    “So far you have chosen the do nothing option and the person is still hitting themselves. Doing nothing isn’t ethical it is just abrogating responsibility.”

    Forced drugging isn’t ethical. Nobody has a “responsibility” to invasively blockade someone’s neurotransmission. Especially no quack who doesn’t even demonstrate disease of neurotranmission. I already chose an option, if you believe in the government having a self-harm prevention squad of some description, I said don’t enter their body, touch the outside of it if you feel you must.

    Or there’s the culturally sensitive gender sensitive swarming by syringe wielding attackers, and the forced disrobing, of forced drugging.

    “Taking options off the table is ceding the moral high ground if anything imo. And taking options off the table for other people certainly does.”

    I had no idea, opponents of forced drugging LAWS are just taking an “option” off the table for “other people” according to you. Reminds me of those pesky opponents of China’s One Child Policy who are taking the “option off the table” for those Chinese who might like to be coerced into only having child. There is no scenario under which forced drugging is not a human rights violation.

    I think our conversation is permanently done.

  • So called “capacity” is a medico-legal judgment. We live in a world where it assumed people labeled “competent” would have no problem accepting psychiatry’s drugs.

    Capacity is not even an objective fact, yet you act like it is. It is a subjective judgment imposed on a conscious person, and in practice amounts to millions of people having their clearly articulated “NO” steamrolled by people who think they know better than them.

    Nobody chooses to be in a situation where violent thugs are overriding their express wishes in relation to the content of their own biology.

    Deciding what the best course of action is, is simple. You listen to their wishes. If you feel you must intervene, you don’t enter their body.

  • Do they stop beating themselves in the face when they are eating? Drinking? And if they do find the bathroom and some food and drink, how are they “oblivious to their surroundings”?

    And if they have been without nutrition for days how do they have the energy to continue punching themselves in the face?

    How do they remember where their face is but forget they need to eat?

    How do they remember how to make a fist?

    If getting close and gentle touching is making “no difference” how would restraint be resisted?

  • Aswat has had a hell of a lot coincidences occur around him if he was never a radical islamist. Just happening to have his passport found on the battlefield? Just happening to slip into Britain in June 2005?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haroon_Rashid_Aswat

    It is quite possible that the threat of winding up in ADX Florence for life has driven him into a mentally distressed state.

    But then half the internet says he is an MI6 agent too.

    It’s anybody’s guess what this case truly contains.

  • “Getting free of all that meant having a series of insights, not so much about psychiatry (which I’d always thought was garbage, before they broke me), but about myself, my feelings, my behaviour.”

    I sense you have a real sense of personal responsibility about helping yourself. I love seeing stuff like this. Congratulations on getting free and crafting for yourself, a solid foundation on which to live your life.

    You gave yourself the dignity of risk and it sounds like your partner did too. That’s a beautiful story.

  • Your Jack Bauer ticking time-bomb esque extreme thought experiments are the sorts of “ammunition” thrown at opponents of forced drugging all the time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario

    “Others point out that the ticking-bomb torture proponents adopt an extremely short-term view, which impoverishes their consequentialism. Using torture—or even declaring that one is prepared to accept its use—makes other groups of people much more likely to use torture themselves in the long run. The consequence is likely to be a long-term increase in violence. This long-term effect is so serious that the person making the torture decision cannot possibly (according to this argument) make a reasonable estimate of its results. Thus the decision-maker has no grounds for certainty that the value of the lives saved from the ticking bomb will outweigh the value of the lives lost because of the subsequent disorder. She or he cannot arrive at a successful accounting of consequences.”

    Just like ticking time bomb justifications of torture, justifying forced drugging any circumstance sends the message to others that forced drugging is acceptable and increases use of forced drugging.

    You assume a psychiatric facility is the best place for a family to take the young woman. This assumes a society in which families are taught to seek out psychiatry in times of crisis.

    You assume that a conscious person is “unable to give consent” when we know that is just mainstream psychiatry speak for a conscious person being treated as though they are unconscious.

    You assume that people would be in their own home “beating themselves in the face”. Did they stop beating themselves in the face to put on clothes and shower that day? Do they cease beating themselves in the face to go to the bathroom? That they would come with their family in a vehicle to a facility, no doubt “beating themselves in the face” the whole ride… walk lockstep with their family into the facility “beating themselves in the face”.

    This utterly ridiculous story is the basis upon which you justify forced drugging laws that apply to everybody?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_cases_make_bad_law

  • You’ve offered no justification for invasive molecular violence against a person’s brain function here. What can be achieved with as little invasiveness as possible, should be achieved with as little invasiveness as possible.

    Touching the outside of someone’s body, while potentiality dangerous and potentially unpleasant, is in no way directly comparable to an invasive intervention upon brain function such as forced drugging. It’s like the difference between handcuffs and a taser straight to the heart. Night and day. And policing was carried out without “electroshock compliance devices” for a long time without recourse to such invasiveness in unarmed confrontations.

    Putting a convicted spree killer in a cell until he dies, is less invasive and against human dignity than injecting his biology with chemicals designed to stop his heart and kill him.

    If something can be done with as light a touch on the fundamentals of human dignity as possible, it should be.

    Jonah would never ignore the many unsung killings of “patients” due to restraint in psychiatric facilities. In fact, by calling for the abolition of forced drugging, if he got his wish, the vast majority of restraint situations would disappear overnight. Because restraining people in preparation for forced injections is the primary use of restraint.

    How this Mr. Pies thread turned into a restraint debate is beyond me.

    I’ll give you one thing, I did smile at the imagery of a guy in a clown wig and red nose restraining someone. Let’s hope he wasn’t in full get-up. And I do agree “cuddling” is a BS term for restraint. The human right to freedom of movement is an important human right, but lower on the ladder than the human right to bodily integrity. Losing the right to bodily integrity is the wholesale smashing of human dignity.

    I don’t think there is any evidence to be impugning Patch Adams as a dictator who fires staff.

    You began your post with “However in making your choice for someone else”. Opponents of a system that denies choice are not making a choice for someone else.

    Opponents of forced drugging would like to take away the government’s power to deny people a choice. In such a world, if you’d like to choose to take psychiatric drugs, none of the opponents of forced drugging would be standing in your way. Asking us to have our freedom and our right to own our bodies pooled with a group of people who don’t seem to mind having their to own their bodies stripped from them at a moment’s notice, is a bridge too far. Anybody who expects psychiatric survivors to accept lesser protection on their own bodies from government invasion just so those who find government invasion “good” can rapidly get their body invaded, are asking for all of our bodies to become a commons.

    I will never accept being put at risk of sudden death by forced drugging, long term disablement by forced drugging, further traumatization by forced drugging, living in fear of forced drugging, just because some stranger prefers the thought of psychiatrists making a decision for them during a crisis.

    If you’re into “acuphase” buy some and take it. If you want to go about your life with a safety net of coercive legal structures that make it possible for government to force acuphase into everyone else’s body, as reassuring as that might seem to fan of acuphase, feeling “safe” about the knowledge that come what may, acuphase is going to get dumped into YOUR brain, as much as I’d love to help you out, as much as I believe in your right to get whatever “treatment” you want, reserving the right to get treatment you DON’T ask for, unfortunately comes at too great a cost to me. You see, my body has to be as easily enterable as you’d like yours to be, for such a situation to exist.

    People with psychiatric labels who are for forced psychiatry, can’t avoid forcibly pooling their bodily freedom with the millions of other people whose bodies have been entered by force. A military draft is some pretty serious stuff because your body and life are being put in harm’s way against your will. I consider it to be the case that my body was drafted into the pool of bodies forcibly meddled with by psychiatry. I believe this is an atrocious situation.

    While fighting for your nation in a war might be an act of extreme sacrifice, I am simply unwilling to pay the price in risk that forced drugging advocates are demanding I pay by keeping my body in constant legal jeopardy. This price, is higher than any monetary amount I could ever dream of, this price, and I simply cannot say to myself “oh, it’s a small price to pay, living in constant terror of forced psychiatry, facing the potentiality of death, maiming, brain damage, so long as some stranger elsewhere in society can get his acuphase even if he hasn’t asked for it”.

    Some people with psychiatric labels don’t mind being on a short leash. It’s simply indecent to externalize the costs of the provision of that short leash to others. People actually had to be killed by forced psychiatry for it to be the case that someone can pick up the phone, call 9/11, and have someone carted off to be tranquilized like a zoo animal. Very few apologists of forced drugging think about the collateral damage that ensues when they see their own legal rights as pesky “barriers to treatment”.

    Pro-choice activists in the abortion debate have a slogan “If you are against abortion don’t have one”. There is another slogan “If you are against gay marriage then don’t marry a gay person”.

    Nobody can say to an opponent of forced drugging “If you are against forced drugging don’t get forcibly drugged”.

  • I won’t be signing your petition. The way this has been reported has never sat well with me.

    From the Mother Jones article:

    “In fact, the cafe study also contained a serious oversight that, if corrected, would have prevented patients like Dan from being enrolled. Like other patients with schizophrenia, patients experiencing their first psychotic episode are at higher risk of killing themselves or other people.”

    Uncited, in the pdf linked to, this claim that people with the schizophrenia label are at higher risk of murdering other people, and what appears to be a claim the whole “group” of so called “first episode” people should never be in any studies?

    Another problem I’ve had with the Dan Markingson reporting… from various MIA blogs…

    “In Minnesota, however, patients who have been involuntarily committed are given an option called a “stay of commitment,” which means they can avoid being locked up as long as they agree to comply with the treatment recommendations of their psychiatrist. On November 20, Olson recommended that Dan be given a stay, and the court agreed. But the next day, instead of simply treating Dan, Olson enrolled him in a pharmaceutical company-sponsored research study.”

    “Instead of simply treating Dan”, treating is code for drugging, no doubt forcibly considering all the legal coercion swirling around Dan. All the reporting I’ve read alludes that Dan should simply have been drugged outside of a study instead of drugged within a study.

    “Dan believed that other people could read minds, that he was being visited by aliens, and that a Satanic cult that was calling on him to kill people, including his mother.”

    And some people in Papua New Guinea believe in witches and kill people on that basis too

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/18/papua-new-guinea-witch-burning_n_2709968.html

    Their thoughts don’t get labeled a brain disease or a “thought disorder”.

    “Second, the document discusses a “newly-added 16 bed psychosis specialty unit” where all nurses and staff are “supportive of research” and “all patients are reviewed for possible research candidacy.” Every patient? Remember, patients with psychotic illnesses are among the most vulnerable patients in the hospital. Because of their thought disorders, they are often unable to understand and appreciate the risks of research.”

    There you have it. “Patients” with “illnesses”. BECAUSE of their “thought disorders”, they can’t appreciate the risks of research, but what of the standard forced drugging? Where risks are taken with people’s bodies without any consideration for what they might want? I agree the study was dirty, that Pharma is beyond reprehensible. People also die in the standard forced drugging (non-research study) environment. They don’t become cause célèbres. I’ve seen no evidence proving that the drug caused Dan write the suicide note, perform the act, or that being forcibly drugged in a non-study environment with the same or similar drugs would have led to a different outcome. I’ve seen no analysis of the myriad other factors that can clearly go into wearing someone declared “thought disordered” down to the point of ending their lives. A blood test that Seroquel was in his body? What does that prove?

    “Apparently one way is to have research staff “attend morning report before inpatient rounds take place,” in order to “identify any possible subjects who might be eligible for studies.” Yet again, this statement should raise alarm bells. Morning report is a time for discussing the care of patients, where private medical information is revealed. Why should research staff working for pharmaceutical companies and Contract Research Organizations be given privileged access to the private health information of hospitalized patients? Of course, privacy violations were at the heart of Mike Howard’s complaint about Stephen Olson to the Board of Regents, which was dismissed by the General Counsel.”

    Privacy. Now, I’ve been in research studies. I’ve been in research studies in coercive mental health systems. If I’d have decided to end my life, and there was a medical ethicist who plastered my childhood photographs, and private written journal entries all over Mother Jones, I’d be none too happy myself. I think the inclusion of a dead man’s private journals in the Mother Jones article was gratuitous and certainly speaks to the issue of privacy.

    I think it is useful to spotlight the gross abuses of Pharma in their research practices. I also know the rapacious for profit predatory human research on drugging people labeled “thought disordered” would never have even dawned on mankind had the fraudulent concept of unusual thoughts being declared “medically” out of order ever risen up.

    I feel people should be protected from unethical research. I also feel the need to be protected from people who see “thought disorder” and “illness” in an American guy who believes in mind-reading, alien abduction and satanic cults, but see Papua New Guinean witch burners as just plain old Papua New Guinean witch burners.

    All the talk about Dan being coerced, Dan not being able to consent, (language which simply means those with the power ignore or override what the target says regarding consent, Dan wasn’t unconscious)… yet the alternative that people are saying would be ethical would to be just force on him the standard forced neuroleptic intervention outside of the auspices of a study.

    If Dan was one of the countless people who merely had their unusual beliefs pathologized by psychiatry, had the SZ label slapped on them, were ordered into forced drugging, would this have been “ethical”?. This whole story is supposed to be about “coerced participation in psychiatric research”, but the champions of Dan’s cause seem to be saying instead of “coerced participation in psychiatric research”, Dan should have been in “coerced participation in psychiatric treatment”.

    That’s not a petition I can sign.

  • “Perhaps you would agree that LSD had a particular effect on the Beatles that contributed to a very different album than, say, if their LSD had been swapped out with methamphetamine or neuroleptics – or sand.”

    Of course, that’s why I used words like “totality” and “100%”. Drugs are a factor. A factor.

    It’s also why I don’t like to see juries led to believe a drug caused 100% of a suicide or a crime.

    Hi Rutherford, I’ve never seen anything from you before. I wish you the best with helping your family member.

    “The precise mechanisms underlying opioid-induced hyperalgesia are poorly understood.” From that wiki page. There are all sorts of confounds. When access to a drug is behind a government licensed gatekeeper and the only way to get more of a drug is to verbally report more pain, there are confounds. I am sure messing around with opioid receptors can mess things up for a while in the long run. Pain or not painful is a world away from make thousands of decisions and plan a shooting spree.

    Pain is a hornet’s nest of hard to study stuff, and I probably shouldn’t have extended the NIMH guy’s quote using pain, but the mechanisms not being well understood still applies to any of the paradoxical effects floated across the board.

    Say no to drugs kids.

  • “some people” hit themselves in the face? I’ve never heard such a situation unless the person was already provoked into such things by being locked in solitary confinement by the staff. Desperate people to desperate things. If the face-puncher is on the outside why is he choosing to punch only his own face? Did you ask him? When you saw such a person, did you ask them anything?

    “The situation i’m describing is one that by any stretch of the imagination or definition the person is not able to give consent…”

    What’s the protocol with people who are too drunk to consent to sex?

    You don’t enter their body. What if they accidentally walk in front of a car? You might touch the outside of their body.

    Blockade of brain function using forced drugging as a way of defending oneself or “protecting someone from themselves”, takes you far beyond helper and into date rapist territory.

    By the way let’s not pretend the government cares in all cases if someone harms themselves or takes risks. Society has very LIMITED set of harms they will intervene upon. The face-puncher (if he exists anywhere but in solitary confinement and provocation) is allowed to commit a slow suicide with overeating, oversmoking, overdrinking, solo hiking, extreme sports, etc. etc. etc. and none of the “front line heroes” of mental health will feel entitled to chemically lobotomize him.

    The human right to be free of someone forcibly messing around with your brain should apply to all humans.

    If you can’t see why a world free of forced drugging would be ethically superior to a world where forced drugging is still in the “toolbox” for controlling people, then well.

    I think you just defended forced drugging, using a hypothetical story about extreme human behavior.

    For thousands of years human being have lived in close quarters to one another without raping brains as a method of deleting problem behavior from the scene.

    Chemical restraint vs. physical restraint is about the profound violation and difference between having the outside of your body touched by others who have a reasonable right to self defense, and the profaning nature of wholesale biological violence against a person’s consciousness.

    Extreme behavior is going to be responded to. It is not so much about what you would want, or your preference. If you commit a crime you could to prison OR get the death penalty needle stuck in you. That won’t be your choice. It is up to society to decide how inhumane they want to be toward people who become a problem. I would like to see a world where there is respect for the human right of people to not have their biology entered as a response, whether it be death penalty or forced drugging. There are non-invasive ways to deal with these problems.

    If you’re for invasive ways of dealing with these problems… invasive forced drugging, then fine. I’m against forced drugging.

    The argument from “it would cost too much” to have a less invasive system is the argument from expediency. It is an argument that says if we can just pickle a human being’s brain so they shut up and stop doing anything, and drugs are cheap, quick, and easy, we should just tranquilize people like they are zoo animals. I don’t like being treated like a zoo animal.

    You may “chose acuphase or similar…until someone can come up with something better.” I want a world with choice.

  • “quite capable (over time and under the right circumstances) of distinguishing the difference between thoughts and behaviors that are useful to themselves and to our species and those that are harmful and self- defeating”

    I think this is a great article. Me, I subscribe to a non-medicalized view of “bad habits” and I think peoples’ personal power to break habits in their lives is undermined by the disease model. One only needs to look at Hollywood stars who have millions of dollars and a blank check to purchase the “best” “addiction medicine” “care” and how it rarely works out.

    I like psychologists Stanton Peele, John Booth Davis, and Jeff Schaler on this issue.

    The books “Addiction is a Choice” and “The Myth of Addiction” are starting points.

    I have ended some “bad habits” in life and am yet to end others I’m still habituated to, sadly, but I know that it is up to me and there isn’t a technical expert in the world who can end them for me. I think people need to keep open the idea of moderation, and that this total abstinence first approach we often see can be too much pressure for many people.

    I also wonder why neuroscience researchers blame “reward pathways” for bad habits, but not good habits. And I think saying a brain is “rewarded” is like saying a liver feels “rewarded”. It’s a line of thought that disembodies the human from their entire world by blaming the brain. If something feels good, whether it be blasting yourself with heroin, or even thinking you’re superior to others, people are gonna do it. How long they do it depends on what comes first, death or a reassessment of their values. I most appreciate the reminder in this piece, that MILLIONS of people have quit “bad habits” without recourse to so called “addiction medicine” technical “expertise”. So true.

    I really recommend youtube searching for Stanton Peele. And Googling John Booth Davies “Myth of Addiction” and Schaler’s “Addiction is a Choice”.

    I think there is some good economics papers too on time horizon values. People thinking of and planning for a long life, or just indulging today and throwing caution to the wind. I do think the prohibition on substances puts them behind a glass case that mystifies them to young people. I think if all drugs were legal people would use them more responsibly and the war on drugs is just a war on humanity responsible for criminal violence on a huge scale. The “addiction medicine” industry is just a piggyback on biopsychiatric thinking extended to bad habits, and every criticism of biopsychiatry can be applied to it too.

    I don’t think calling “addiction” bad habits is a “blaming someone” type thing, I mean, if you lived on a deserted island like Tom Hanks in that movie “Cast Away” there would be no-one there to judge the “goodness or badness” of someone doing a certain drug all day every day. It’s up to the person to decide what is having a net positive effect in their lives. If you’re neglecting your kids and your responsibilites because of a bad habit, people are going to judge you, but blame from outside is not important. It’s how the person thinks about their own decisions. If you have terminal cancer already, smoking isn’t going to rob you of a future you won’t get anyway, is it? We do live in a society with other people, and it would be “ideal” for everyone to live a moderated, temperate life, but this is a problem in human life that has been struggled with since the Ancient Greeks and beyond… and it is a problem that will outlive all of us. On how to live… you either find a path, or you put yourself at the mercy of others like “addiction medicine specialists”. There is a reason that doesn’t work out for even the richest Hollywood stars. That reason is, it’s quackery to think there is a technical fix to the “over”indulged life.

    Good piece. Thanks for writing it.

  • “I just think that sometimes we overlook that conversation and the chasm that sometimes exists between our ‘no force’ decree (with which I very much agree) and the fact that many of our alternatives (peer respites, supportive environments outside of the system, etc.) aren’t equipped to move through a violent place with someone.”

    Naive self-defense is what sparks most violent incidents in a forced psychiatry setting (state hospital etc.). People in extreme states who are swarmed by those wishing to carry out forced drugging often try in vain to ward off their attackers. This gets called “agitation”. It’s a completely understandable reaction to being assaulted by the staff and treated like a subhuman.

    I am not against an alternative place having physical immobilization as a last resort. People in any environment have the right to defend themselves against someone INITIATING violence. The medicalization, the biologization, however, of control, is completely unacceptable. We should monitor, avoid, and only in very rare circumstances deploy physical force to defend against physical violence. Biological violence, touching the INSIDE of someone’s body, should be illegal.

    Holding someone still, immobilizing the outside of their body, by touching the outside of their body, is not a human rights abuse in the context of physical violence self defense.

    Raping the person’s biology with the forced administration of drugs to control them, is 10,000 times more violent than immobilizing a violent person in a non biological way, and well and truly a human rights abuse and one of the most disgusting things a human being can do to another.

    I think rage-rooms, rubber bats, punching bags, and calling the cops when someone’s actively planning a crime, are fine, not ideal, but they aren’t forced drugging.

    Deterrent factors, believe it or not, do work, even the most “disturbed” people soon learn in a forced psychiatry environment that resistance to their forced drugging attackers is futile. Rules and consequences for rule breaking do deter most people. Credible threats of repercussions for behavior do get through more often than not to most people.

    Ideally people should have understanding, able-bodied family members willing to be them through a crisis, to take time off work, and keep the government out of it. Keep strangers out of it. People need people they know and trust around them when they are in an extreme state.

    Practically anything would be better than the current situation where families just defer to “bio”psychiatry quacks and have their “loved one” shipped off to a facility for forced drugging and labeling. It’s psychiatry’s violence against millions of people it has coerced in its past and present that doesn’t get 0.000001% as much play as the violence a minority of mentally distressed people commit.

    Forced psychiatry IS institutionalized violence against the people who are targeted.

  • “he mentioned there were studies suggesting that untreated mania results in brain damage.”

    Could it be that most psychiatrists are nothing but regurgitators of psychiatry’s endless array of invalid research? That there is a difference between people who think for themselves and people who just line up, rote memorize textbooks and pass exams? That the social status afforded psychiatrists for simply jumping through a series of hoops and possessing “training” is dying on the vine now that every single thing a doctor knows can be found with a 3 second Google search?

    And when coupled with the legal power to forcibly enter the bodies of citizens against their will, could it be that such “trained” labelers and druggers represent a clear and present danger to the public?

    On the topic of so called supersensitivity psychosis, as the former head of the NIMH has recently stated… “Another important lesson is that even effective drugs may not prove to be useful keys to understanding disease mechanisms. Even if drugs that block dopamine receptors treat psychotic symptoms, it does not follow that the fundamental problem is excess dopamine any more than pain relief in response to morphine suggests that the original problem is a deficiency of endogenous opiates. ”

    http://dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=41290

    I don’t buy the claims that the molecules in drugs “cause” people to have a particular series of problematic thoughts that get labeled “psychosis”. I buy that mood can be altered, sure, but directly blaming drugs for someone believing they are Jesus, for instance, just isn’t something I buy. Anymore than I would buy someone claiming that painkillers cause pain, to extend the former NIMH guy’s quote.

    Blaming major tranquilizer drugs, the pulling, adding, stacking, initiating, ending of tranquilizer drugging for the totality of the extreme states of mind that get labeled “psychosis”, is like ascribing 100% of the credit for the Beatles album Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band to Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD).

    Nowhere to be found in a drug based explanation for that Beatles album is the billions of decisions that the Fab Four made in their lives up to that point, their choice to master their musical instruments, nurture their talent, the myriad factors around the financial freedom millionaire artists have to focus their creative energies and produce great art…etc.

    Speaking only for myself, as one only can, I’d never reduce any of the complexity of my extreme states of mind to whether I was drugged one day, a little less drugged another month, not drugged at all at some other point, sure, meddling with my thinking organ was a factor in how I experienced the world, but I was always still a infinitely complex human being, as we all are. Whatever trains of thought and narratives I wound up in, are not just some chemical soup, they were part of my life, labeled a “pathological” part of life by psychiatric quacks, sure, but all of our lives are emergent interactions with the human world, and contain everything we’ve ever learned, pondered or felt about anything humankind has ever been, known or believed. The “storm” of racing assocations and the unique to each person content of people’s thoughts when they are mentally overwhelmed with life, attest to this complexity.

    The process of achieving a solid state of mind that is acceptable to society with a minimum of unusual thoughts, feelings and behaviors, is something the individual must be ready to achieve. If a person’s original stressors and life situation and worldview have not evolved to a more bearable situation, it should not surprise that tinkering with their brain, by pushing or pulling various levers, has mixed results. It shouldn’t surprise that fluctuations in the level of tranquilization drugging allow people more or less scope to *THINK*, depending on more or less tranquilization impairing their brain.

    If someone has been busy working all their lives and after retirement finds that having the time to read and expand their mind enables them to form thought on various things they’d never considered, to have new experiences that they didn’t have while they were in the rat race, then a young person who had a mental crisis and had a tranquilizing “cork” of drugs stuck in their thinking organ by psychiatry, is sometimes gonna return to the type of thinking that got the cork jammed in them in the first place. If the cork is pulled, out of nowhere, with no preparation and readiness, maturity, insight into their previous experiences etc, expect the revolving door.

    What thoughts a person labeled mentally ill has, at various times in their life, are colored by much more than what’s going on with that day’s dose of brain disabling psych drugs. I’m sure part of what allows the Rolling Stones in their 70s to go out on stage with complete ease and comfort and no stage fright is the fact they’ve performed live thousands of times, before millions of people, and know they are acknowledged and loved worldwide for their artistry and talent. They have no reason to doubt themselves.

    When a person with a psychiatric label, destroyed social identity from psychiatry imposed stigma, a person with a tranquilized, drugged brain, indoctrinated into fear and learned helplessness, a person led to believe their future is one of hopelessness, can’t even look someone in the eyes, doesn’t want to leave their apartment, psychiatrists as we see above, label such things “negative symptoms”. As though a “disease” caused them.

    The medicalization is relentless, and the reason is, society has completely misplaced where the expertise in these matters is. Society believes there is more insight to be found on the topic of extreme mental states in “trained professionals” than in the very people who have first hand experience of such states. Society literally believes the rote memorization of textbooks, the passing of medical exams, the slicing up of cadavers, the sorts of things that med school training provides, is the key to producing professionals who understand the extremes of life. I don’t know what happens on day one of a psychiatrist’s education, but they seem to get told certain thoughts are a brain disease, and then they proceed to base their entire careers on that false foundation.

    The fact that psychiatrists say things like “there were studies suggesting that untreated mania results in brain damage.” tells you psychiatry as a whole stopped listening to human beings long ago, and a piece of paper called a “study” has much more success in getting a psychiatrist’s attention and listening ear than the human beings they claim to “treat”. If only we were all pieces of paper, maybe we’d get listened to.

    The internet is not even two decades old. For over 90% of psychiatry’s history, when the false “knowledge” contained in psychiatry’s papers and texts was only available to the rarefied strata of society with a medical education, those labeled as “patients”, and parents, government officials, investors, concerned citizens of all stripes, could only blindly trust the holders of the “knowledge”.

    In just 17 short years of the internet breaking this monopoly stranglehold on information, we’ve seen psychiatry’s credibility take a nosedive. With the internet, anyone can peek behind the curtain and see psychiatrists are not the wizards of science they’ve been made out to be. Hopefully psychiatry’s edifice continues to crumble at a precipitous rate, and without a doubt, information exchanges such as websites like this one, and many more, will continue to shovel soil onto its zyprexa logo covered casket.

  • “character attacks against psychiatrists or psychiatry.”

    What does it say about the character of anybody who would enter someone’s body against their express wishes? To strip people naked, hold them down, ignore them pleading with their attackers to stop, stabbing them with hard steel, flooding their bodies with brain disabling drugs? Traumatizing people for life?

    What is the character of someone who justifies this biological violence? What is the character of someone whose BMW repayments are paid for with the screams of helpless forced drugging victims?

    What came first? A centuries long record of human rights abuses against people labeled mental patients, or the people labeled mental patients responding?

  • (Australia’s most famous psychiatrist) “Patrick McGorry is probably the psychiatrist who has the most experience with early intervention including early use of neuroleptics.”

    Well of course he is the psychiatrist with the most experience with intervention in young people. He operates in the jurisdiction with the highest use of forced drugging per capita in the world. He has the power, and uses it, to forcibly drug young people in crisis, putting them on home-based forced drugging community commitment, something that is done in Australia without even a court hearing. It must be remembered that McGorry’s insights, if any, came at a cost of enormous human misery inflicted by the most coercive mental health system in the Western world. I liken this to the “research insights” gained by Dr. Mengele in Auschwitz, which provided medical data that is still in use today, for instance data on how long the human body can last before it freezes to death. Any nod to McGorry’s oeuvre should come with an acknowledgment of the massive world record setting coercion that the system he works in carries out, and the massive amount of ethically questionable research consent that colors his research given young people in McGorry’s system know their human rights can stripped from them with the stroke of a pen should they do anything to displease their psychiatric masters.

    Below, mainstream media acknowledges the jurisdiction in which McGorry’s research is conducted is the most coercive environment in the entire world.

    http://www.theage.com.au/national/reform-call-for-mental-health-care-20081208-6u1b.html

    So I think any mention of McGorry, especially on MIA, should be sensitive to this fact that psychiatrists carrying out research in this Australian jurisdiction, hold within their hands the power to do research on people in the most coercive system in the Western world. You’ve heard of blood money, I consider these blood data. Any data coming out of Victoria Australia should be seen as data that piggybacks on world record setting force, compulsion, misery and coercion. McGorry is the Australian version of Torrey.

    It’s also disappointing to hear anybody lend credence to this notion that McGorry can predict who is “at risk” of having a crisis that will be labeled “psychosis”. Even DSM4 kingpin Allen Frances, finds McGorry to be a pusher of indefensible junk prediction.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201201/psychosis-risk-proves-be-indefensible

    You’ve gotta love the quote from the 1991 study…

    “While psychosis is undoubtedly demoralizing and stigmatizing, it may also be biologically toxic.”

    Replace the fraudulent, reifying, pseudomedical, pseudobiological, label “psychosis”, with the word “psychiatry” and the quote would work just as well.

    I applaud any attempt to re-imagine the use of major tranquilizer drugging as a “tonic” and to end the diseasing of people’s experiences, but forced drugging in any form, low-dose, whatever, will always be opposed.

  • Implicit in referring to survivors of forced psychiatry as having had a “bad experience” is the suggestion that it is possible for the government detaining law-abiding citizens, forcibly altering their brains with tranquilizer drugs, and slapping a stigmatizing label on them to be a “good experience”, as though, through tweaking and reform, the government entering your brain against your will could be perfected so that nobody found such biological violence against them a “bad experience”.

    “and that is the decision of a judge–not a psychiatrist or other physician.”

    Empty. We know around the world success rates of convincing a judge you are not brain diseased, in the face of a psychiatrist petitioning a judge to have the citizen’s right to own their body stripped from them, is like 3%. Numerous well done jurisprudence studies from top scholars have shown the “rubber stamp” judicial decision in commitment hearings to be perfunctory at best. The power imbalance, is plain for all to see. The judge is adjudicating a fight for liberty between a targeted person on what may be the worst week of their lives, they are extremely traumatized and distressed, even drugged and tranquilized, and they must somehow, make their case to a judge, in the face of a so called “biological” psychiatrist, who is seen by society as a wizard who can diagnose brain disease without even examining brains. To claim the psychiatrist isn’t the one initiating the legal jeopardy, and that the psychiatrist doesn’t hold 97% as much sway as the judge does, is just a blatant obfuscation. His appeal to “blind justice” is a completely offensive claim.

    “I do not defend this system as ideal or always in the best interests of the patient – nor was it a system created by psychiatrists”

    Governments worldwide didn’t just institute laws that allow the forced flooding of law-abiding citizens brains with toxic drugs out of thin air. They were convinced by so called “biological” psychiatrists that mentally and emotionally distressed citizens were a biological underclass unworthy of basic human rights. Biological psychiatry did this. Psychiatry whispered in government’s ear, and behind every single push for more involuntary psychiatry laws, you can find top psychiatrists and their professional associations advising government, lobbying government, how the dishonesty of Mr. Pies “don’t blame us” shtick, this “who me?”, kind of stuff, can be swallowed by anyone, is just amazing to me. I suspect it won’t be swallowed by everyone.

    “Indeed, over more than 25 years of practice, I witnessed many more patients benefit from psychiatric treatment than were harmed by it–”

    As though a “doctor” who forcibly initiates the doctor/patient relationships he pretends to unbiasedly critique can report on outcomes as though coercion doesn’t color them.

    It is a well-known fact among people who live outside the bubble of so called “biological” psychiatry’s fanaticism, that over a psychiatrist’s career, he witnesses coerced, compelled, and forced people, who he forced a “doctor/patient” relationship on against their will, appear thankful, just so they can win their freedom and get the hell out of there. It is also a fact, that many of a coercive psychiatrist’s former detainees, will avoid them like the plague for the rest of their lives, because they live in fear of their former government imposed psychiatrist. Like neocons who were the architects of the invasion of Iraq, they only have ears to hear, and eyes to see, the people who are happy that Saddam is gone. The collateral damage is always ignored. And of course, they’ll say “it was the President’s decision”, just like the psychiatrists hide behind the rubber stamp of the judge who comes to the hospital for a perfunctory “hearing” initiated by a psychiatrist who seeks to drug the targeted individual based on the psychiatrist’s religious beliefs about “brain diseases” they can’t even prove exist in the targeted citizen’s body.

    “Alas, I do not have confidence that further exchanges on the MIA website are likely to be fruitful or respectful. My experience with the MIA website – and based on the experience of one of my colleagues, who used to post on MIA – has not been positive. I believe that the profusion of anonymous and insulting comments – poorly-moderated by the website administrators – makes for a very unhelpful and demeaning forum.”

    Oh, a dig at both the administrators AND the audience. I do not have confidence that any interaction between psychiatry and I will be fruitful or respectful. My experience with psychiatry, and based on the experience of millions of people forcibly detained and meddled with by psychiatry over the last couple of hundred years, has not been positive. I believe that anonymity is not a crime. In fact in the words of late Aaron Schwartz “In 1787, when America’s framers wanted to argue for its Constitution, they published their arguments (the Federalist Papers) anonymously. Whistleblowers have released everything from the Pentagon Papers to the Downing Street Memos. Anonymous speech is a First Amendment right.”

    “I do understand that many on the MIA website have had very bad experiences with psychiatry, but that is no excuse for the abusive (and usually anonymous) comments that are often posted in the MIA forums.”

    Mr. Pies exercises the freedom of association his profession denies to others, he has the right to walk away, he has the right to not have our words go into his ears, enter his brain. The people who have had much more forced into their brain than mere words, well, he’s “sorry you had such a bad experience”. The people asphyxiated to death by psychiatric nurses during forced drugging take downs, who now lie in morgues with toe-tags on, they had a “bad experience”… Going to a concert, or a museum, is an “experience”. Having your brain assaulted, violated, damaged, by an out of control profession of fanatical drug company money soaked wannabe neurologists, posing as real doctors, who possess nothing but labels and drugs, and how see people as nothing but brains, having your very humanity denied, by goons armed with syringes who swarm you, hold you down, ignore your please for mercy, and brutally steamroll your consciousness because they view as a defective being, having your good name wrecked and stigma heaped upon you for life, having your entire family and everyone you know indoctrinated to view every word that comes out of your mouth as the meaningless chemical soup of a “brain disease”, is not a “bad experience”, Mr. Pies, it is the wholesale devastation of an innocent human being’s life.

    In my opinion it takes massive hubris, and deep, 25 year long indoctrination to talk like Mr. Pies does. So called “biological” psychiatrists, simply need to be stripped of the right to enter people’s biology by force. We won’t have to worry about stopping them testing or examining anybody’s biology by force, because these people simply don’t examine biology in clinical practice at all, they only flood never-proven-diseased biology with drugs. They don’t know what they are doing, and they are very dangerous to others. Will they go to their graves never admitting they were wrong?, never admitting they used the violent force of the state to impose their ridiculous and false “brain disease” quackery claims on others against their will? Never considering for one moment, that freely made decision they made in medical school to specialize in psychiatry (something fewer and fewer medical students find a compelling route), the freely made decision they made when young, to accept psychiatry’s belief system, is not a fait accompli among the public? Will “drug and label” psychiatrists admit that to force their beliefs on the public, physically force, their beliefs, into the bodies of the non-consenting, is a deeply unethical thing, a human rights abuse among the worst in history? People should have the right, to say no, to having their brain altered, by so-called biological psychiatrists, who don’t even examine biology! How did we get this deep into Alice in Wonderland?

    I live in fear of men like Pies. This constant fear isn’t an “experience”, it’s NOT some “thing that happened”, it is life under the forced psychiatry regime, life in a society that forces this quackery on people by force. It is daily life. Daily, I am forced to live in fear because my right to own my own body, can be ripped away from by a “brain disease” doctor who doesn’t even examine brains. So enjoy that freedom of association, that freedom to walk away from a dialogue Mr. Pies, that freedom to set the terms of the debate. I only wish I had the freedom to ignore your profession. Sadly, denying choice to the people psychiatry labels “patients”, is one of the first rites of initiation into the profession of psychiatry. The few med students who actually do find psychiatry a compelling specialty to enter, quickly learn that what those labeled “mentally ill” say or want, is irrelevant, the most important thing is that drugs get put in their “diseased” brains, regardless of what the targeted person has to say on the matter. 25 years living in the bubble where its completely normal for drugs and ideology to be forced on any stranger dragged into a psychiatric facility, it’s easy to see why Mr. Pies doesn’t appear to understand where the survivors of his profession’s actions are coming from.

  • To “Theinarticulatepoet”.

    Congratulations on leaving comments so offensive as to bring me out of retirement.

    While you may have been conditioned to accept discrimination on the basis of an ascribed group identity / membership rather than on the basis of your proven actions as an individual, you can expect resistance to such injustice from people who actually care about liberty.

    “The conversation needs to be much more grown up. Madness and flying jumbo jets don’t mix. Epilepsy and driving don’t mix.”

    First, marshaling epilepsy as an analogy for ‘mental illness’ and as a rationale for the removal of our rights is bunk. Epilepsy causes lapses of consciousness. The laws in place worldwide to take the right to drive vehicles from people who have suffered seizures often include ‘seizure free periods’, after which, the individual’s right to use a car are restored. Furthermore, epilepsy is a bona fide medical condition, and it is therefore appropriate that these laws involve recourse to physicians certifying that people are OK to drive.

    Medical control over who is worthy of the right to a career in aviation, or the right to defend oneself with a firearm, in terms of the subject matter of the article is a completely different kettle of fish to epilepsy, given the alleged ‘medical conditions’ psychiatrists label and drug are not even established bona fide brain diseases, and don’t involve drivers having seizures.

    I have never misused the tools called “cars”, “firearms”, “knives” or “aircraft”. If you believe in stripping rights from people not on the basis of them having committed crimes/misuses involving such tools in the past, but rather on the basis of a psychiatric label being applied to somebody, their ascribed membership in the minority group you like to call “mad people”, then I’m afraid you, as you readily admit, “probably won’t win many friends for saying this”.

    The laws that take away 2nd amendment rights on the basis of psychiatric profiling often do so indefinitely and with no regard for demonstrating the individual has misused the tool in question in the past. Further, they often are used to take away, for life, the 2nd amendment rights of veterans who have taken up arms in defense of the United States and her allies. Laws based on psychiatric profiling rather than individual criminal actions are completely contrary to the spirit of everything liberty stands for.

    The laws based on psychiatric profiling banning people with psychiatric labels from various careers, pilot, high level diplomat, politician, etc. are absolutely indefensible and discriminatory. Every comment you’ve left indicates a collectivist mindset, rather than a respect for INDIVIDUAL rights. Individuals who have never demonstrated through their actions as individuals, that they are dangerous people, should never be caught in some dragnet of discrimination. That is what this article was about, that is what respect for individual liberty is about.

    “If we want society to take the cause of mad people seriously we have to stop conducting the conversation like spoilt brats with no regard for anyone but ourselves… ”

    The “spoilt brats” and “mad people” you think should be just fine with being discriminated against by society when they have committed no crime against said society, may have a problem with your choice of epithets. You’ve shown how you would like to “conduct the conversation”.

    “In the UK if you are in hospital you are more likely to be legally detained, which is as it should be.”

    Detention under the UK’s involuntary psychiatry laws is carried out without judicial oversight. Tens of thousands of UK citizens are detained and forcibly drugged each year solely on the basis of a psychiatrist signing papers. And here you are criticizing a country, America, which still has vestiges of due process and judicial oversight. Glass house / stones. A discriminatory non-judicial “review board” stacked with shrinks is not judicial oversight.

    ” In the UK seclusion and restrain[sic] are much less common than in the US where that problem is much much worse (generally).”

    In the UK and throughout the Commonwealth countries forced drugging is carried out without court order, at a vastly higher per capita rate than in the United States, I’d advise everyone against this false consciousness that says if your brain is being forcibly drugged by the government but you’re not in shackles or locked in a small room, that your government is somehow treating you better. Just because the UK has managed to make biological restraint and biological seclusion “seem” more humane, doesn’t make it more humane. There are many survivors who would love the government have the decency to only touch the OUTSIDE of their bodies.

    The list of people who know what they are talking about, who say their lives would never have been destroyed had they been born in the United States where psychiatry is harder to force on people, is a very long list, make absolutely no mistake about that.

    I have never committed a violent crime, never shown anyone in society that I have misused firearms, and if I want to fulfill the dream of holding any career, any career at all, from flying a plane, to be being trusted with children, to jumping out of a plane, to defending myself at home, or my community as a police officer, my country in the military, my country with diplomatic secrets, to working in building demolition, to any “risky” thing in society, you have ZERO right to discriminate against me on the basis of a psychiatric label. Zero.

    This is what collectivist thinking does. If you want to be judged by the content of your psychiatric file, and not the content of your character and your demonstrated actions in this life, go right ahead. I won’t be standing for it, and I know plenty of the readers here won’t stand for psychiatric profiling either.

    CannotSay2013 is not a eugenicist, you should apologize to him, of other minority groups and CannotSay2013, you said of him “Essentially you have just written them off as inferior as well.” He did no such thing.

    I dare say I note the tone of virulent antiamericanism in your tone as well. While you may think it is on topic to this article to be telling Americans “their government is bought and paid for”, “their democracy is dead”, America’s poor are “non unionized Wal Mart wage slaves”, calling the gun rights groups “detached from reality” (nice choice of undermining phrase), you are seriously offending a lot of people, including me. The fact that several times in the comment thread you call for the conversation to be elevated or conducted in a mature way, after what you’ve had to offer, is simply laughable.

    Again, congratulations on leaving the most offensive set of comments I’ve seen on this site in months. In the face of such low blows, I cannot remain silent.

    I will now return to retirement. This will be my only comment.

    Citizens don’t forfeit individual rights by anything other than their actions. Ascribed membership to a group identity alone, an accusation of brain disease, a nationality, a race, whatever, should never be enough for them to be put in internment camps, detained in “hospitals”, or lose the right to own their bodies. This notion that we ought to accept being treated like children or second class citizens, that cops should beat down our doors and our property should be confiscated from us, our rights taken away, certain careers denied to us, on the basis of psychiatry’s claims, rather than our actions as individuals, is something that needs to be countered wherever it rears its ugly head. This article did that and I thought it was a good article. Congratulations on the author completing law school. I’d have said the same if he’d just completed pilot training.

  • I say let everyone prescribe who wants to prescribe. Do away with prescriptions all together.

    Get the government out of our bodies, and then maybe people will do their research before putting a substance in their body. And legalize all drugs.

    And of course, no force.

  • “I realized that most of the suicides I had witnessed had been after abrupt medication changes, that most of the bipolar patients had turned manic on antidepressants, and that many of the anxiety patients that were difficult to cure with cognitive therapy were actually suffering from akathesia.”

    This is the pat creation story of suicides, anxiety and “mania”, that some people believe.

    The meaning of someones thoughts during these times? The outside influences that helped them to think these thoughts, the inconvenient problem of responsibility, pushed to the side in favor of pharmacological explanations.

    It’s as if people believe the human condition was just peachy before these drugs came along.

  • Are you saying that the “wet brain”, decided to write the “intelligent” books?

    He decided to write them.

    Christopher Hitchens was a neocon warmonger with a flair for prose, nothing more.

    He could have planned much more than a massacre, he helped to cheer-lead a nation into an unjustified war.

    And I don’t blame the distilleries, vineyards, or breweries for his behavior.

    What is so compelling to you about letting the Colorado killer off the hook?

    Great, whatever, “personality” change. SO WHAT?

    People’s personalities change in relation to life events too.

    It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat people as responsible actors.

    “personality” is just a vague catch-all word for somebody subjective opinion generally of what someone thinks and does.

    Why do you even bother arguing? Everything’s just brains, and science is amoral.

    Where do you think ethics came from?

    Just “developed”? you don’t the culture we live in and the thousands of years of traditions are just as, if not more important than wild speculations about your alleged “brain state”?

  • “I think that some people here believe that working on the locked units is a walk in the park and that we go home in the evenings counting all of the big bucks we’ve made that day and feeling very proud of ourselves. ”

    I never said this with relation to “peers” who do this.

    There are psychiatric nurses etc who are very proud of themselves. Whether they find it a walk in the park, I could not care less.

    The folding of psychiatric survivors into paid employees in mental hospitals is a co opting coup for psychiatry.

    There are all sorts of rationalizations.

    We are going to have to agree to disagree.

  • “I wouldn’t worry about it, anonymous. They have free will. If they choose not to be affected by the shrinkage than they wont be. It will not change their personality in any way what so ever. ”

    Nice try. I never said neuroleptics don’t harm the brain. Sure, with a long time on these you will be as very impaired human being.

    Too impaired to teach yourself how to make bombs and train with guns and ammo in the desert for four months.

    The neuroleptics are multitudes of times more toxic than the SSRIs.

    And you know all those brain damaged long term alcoholics and meth heads? They account for the vast majority of heavily premeditated shooting sprees, not.

    Hey these drugs sound pretty toxic. Glad I got them out of my system ASAP.

    I

  • It’s official then.

    The government penalty for the crime of thinking the thoughts prohibited in the DSM, is to be chemically lobotomized, to the point of forced alteration of your grey matter volumes.

    Everybody please abide by the law, and don’t dare think the prohibited thoughts. Because the brain rapists are authorized to alter your brain by force.

    Think you’re talking to God? That’s an immediate forced grey matter reduction.

    Dare to feel suicidal? Again, serious crime with a serious brain volume reduction penalty.

    Thinking the CIA is spying on you? Whoa! Don’t even go there. The government will put your brain in a sling!

    More evidence, that if you’ve raped an innocent human being’s brain with neuroleptic drugs, you’re evil.

  • “Would I be working with any of these people if they weren’t detained? No.”

    That’s the key phrase.

    Language such as “working with” when used in relation to a party who had choice in the matter, irks me.

    I’m sure a lot of anti death penalty advocates would love to counsel and outreach and smooth the way for death row inmates, cook them a nice last meal, look into their eyes while the life drains out of them in the death chamber, but the way I look at it, most of them don’t take a job on payroll in the execution system.

    Like I said you’re better than most, you’re hardly evil, but meh, I like it when people value voluntarism and voluntary interaction.

  • You couldn’t disagree more. Fine. If you want your freedom taken away, go lobby for “Malene’s Law”, and make sure it only applies to YOU personally. Not anyone else.

    If it stands a chance of ensnaring me, I’m against such a law.

    I own my body, and unless I’ve committed a crime, I deserve freedom. As does everybody.

    Real supporters of human rights don’t make exceptions. All humans deserve human rights at all times.

    What you seem to be saying is, distressed humans don’t deserve their freedom, and by extension, that all people should be forced to live in fear of the “people from the government who are here to help us”.

    “Stopping the self destruction is a valid concern. ”

    It may be a valid concern but it is not a valid reason for a set of laws to take away their freedom.

    And I note, there are many self-destructive behaviors, such as eating too much, that you’re prepared to allow adults the freedom to indulge in, with forcing you definition of so called “help” on them.

    Using government force to “help” people is a recipe for destroyed lives.

  • “Yes, it is the law, and in the absolute most extreme cases it makes sense. Violence to self or others, or the inability to care for the most basic of ones own needs can necessitate involuntary commitment. ”

    This is the ‘other people’ deserve forced psychiatry but not me argument.

    Violence to others is a police matter, violence to self is something violent hypocrites use to selectively justify ripping freedom away from certain self-harmers and not others.

    You’re allowed to stuff your face with fast food and give yourself a heart attack, but if you ever dare take to your wrist with a knife, you’re going to lose your freedom.

    Society only pretends to care about freedom, and society only pretends to care about protecting some people from themselves in some instances and not others.

    It would be better if the busy bodies would just let people alone.

  • “4) Scientific evidence supports: A) the brain responds to dopamine blocking drugs by making more dopamine receptors. B) When the dopamine blocker is suddenly removed, there will be a sudden increase in dopamine C) Insomnia is a sure bet…. D) Consistent with *patient* reports: “Haven’t slept in … several days!””

    Not sleeping, is not the reason stated for committing somebody. There has to be someone who doesn’t like the content of the person’s thoughts.

    Nobody can prove any “dopamine flooding” is the cause of the prohibited thoughts.

    I see how you view your job, you’re better than most, but the way I play it, is I boycott earning any money from people’s detention, don’t set foot in an evil place, and I’m happy that way.

  • “I supply the physiological explanation for the *symptoms* that led to the admission. I say in a very matter of fact tone- ” Jim Bob is experiencing an episode of dopamine flooding due to the increased number of D2 receptors created by his long term ingestion (by prescription) of Haldol . Sans Haldol (his choice) he is suffering severe withdrawal.””

    This is a very disappointing load of quackery to be reading from you.

    If I was ever your captive detainee, and you ever DARED reduce my experience to some pathetic guesswork “episode of dopamine flooding”, I’d probably wish I could sue you, but like most captives, I’d probably be powerless to sue you, because you’re free to theorize about quack pat biological explanations for people’s distress.

    Oh, did you get that everyone? Whatever thoughts are going through your mind, and then you’re hospitalized? Sinead’s answer? “Dopamine flooding”.

    How do you justify feeding your mouth by taking away the freedom of innocent people?

  • “Once you get withdrawal symptoms, your nervous system is damaged. ”

    I see. And the name of the doctor who proved your nervous system is damaged? and the tests he carried out to prove it?

    Are people who go trough smoking withdrawal or alchohol or coffee withdrawal, are their nervous systems “damaged” as well?

    And that the damage occurred at the time you say it did?

    “How would you, for instance, like to lose the ability to sleep? That’s for years, not days. (That happened to me.”

    People die after a few months without sleep even if they have fatal insomnia disease. And unless you have a real disease, the longest anyone has been able to stay awake is like 18 days.

    “Any withdrawal symptoms at all represent neurological damage.”

    I’ll remember that next time around someone who is moody from quitting smoking. I’ll be sure to tell them it is just the “neurological damage” talking.

    Sure, bodies adjust when a drug is pulled, but to go around with the certainty that you do, about what is allegedly damaged/happening inside your nervous system, isn’t scientific.

    “Even people who get over the symptoms in a couple of weeks”

    Are those people (millions of them exist, and millions more had no great problems stopping at all), are they “neurologically damaged”?

    There is always much more to the story than mere “luck”, and SPECULATIONS about “neurological damage”.

    Many people have a hard time adjusting to life without all sorts of substances they have habitually used. It is a more complex story than what is often told on various “SSRI withdrawal syndrome” websites.

  • Nonsconstructive posters, trolls.

    Coming from someone whose hit parade of personal attacks against others in recent days include the words

    ““Wankers”, “Idiots”, “God-damned”, “Garbage”, “Bozos”, “self-indulgent crap”, “Idiot savants”.

    That’s rich altostrata. Real rich.

  • “What seems clear is that this is fundamentally a humane approach to talking to people in distress.”

    Talking to people can only ever be “framed” as a “therapy”. The people that talk, can only ever be “framed” as “clinicians” and “patients”.

    But what two humans talking to each other and helping to work through problems will never be, is something “medical” in nature.

    Therefore the ubiquitous medicalizing language that plagues even this, is nothing but an affectation, and bound to get in the way of progress.

  • I know. He spammed us with 3 successive posts on the same point. And called me a spammer. I suppose JeffreyC believes if he ever gets a DWI, he should not be prosecuted, and instead, a beer brewery should be sued for making a magic drug that somehow makes brain chemistry decide to grab his car keys.

  • “continues spamming his/her opinion that the brain has nothing to do with human thought or behavior”

    I’ve never said that. Find a quote of mine and show me where I said that.

    “Faulty brain chemistry makes a man smack himself repeatedly in the chest while grunting – plausible. Faulty brain chemistry makes a man think he’s a villain in a movie on a mission to carry out a violent plot – impossible.”

    Are you aware that you just said “faulty brain chemistry” was responsible for the Aurora Theater massacre?

    Good for you. Enjoy your belief. It is not a belief based on any evidence or scientific understanding. If you think it is, I’ll be patiently waiting for the court case of James Holmes, where the defense lays out its detailed evidence of brain chemistry, and wins a Nobel Prize and takes the world by storm causing every critic of psychiatry’s quackery to forever hold their peace.

    You sound like you may be someone who’d like to blame their brain for something?

    Or maybe you’re just in the business of letting calculating mass murderers off the hook?

    Either way, your comparison of a four month long planned massacre, perfectly timed and armed by a self-trained bomb maker and self-training desert target practicing gunman, to verbal tics, is not persuasive to me.

    I’ll stick to believing Holmes was an angry young man, you can keep your head in the neurological clouds of not being to prove anything is diseased about his brain.

    You call ME a spammmer, yet go and post 3 posts saying the exact same thing.

  • Matthew,

    Here my comment, the newest, is buried on page 2 of the comments.

    This site, please, needs to be like the rest of the internet, where people can see the most recent comments first if they want to. As in the almost universal feature of being able to order comments in terms of “newest first”, found on almost every site out there.

  • How did I miss this particular bar fight that has been going on for days? I honestly didn’t even notice it. Wow. Some serious discord here.

    I don’t have that much of a problem with Steve Moffic. From the first couple of blogs he wrote, I knew where he stood. I knew he was an editor at Psychiatric Times, and I knew what this told me. I knew he’d only recently been exposed to Whitaker’s work, etc.

    I’ve read all these comments, and if he did say he “couldn’t remember the last time he was involved in forced treatment”, and then you found the 2010 Psychiatric Times article where he admits to being involved in a community commitment forced drugging case, well then, that could be seen as incongruous with what he said here.

    Moffic seems to rile some people here, he doesn’t bother me, he doesn’t even approach the level of hypocrisy of others, I’m thinking about the stealth electroshock psychiatrist in the reform movement here.

  • “even though many people give convincing stories of how these drugs can be more difficult to stop than heroin, speed or other illegal drugs.”

    Many people give convincing stories of their memory loss and injury after electroshock, too, but Dr. Healy dismisses these people in his book on electroshock.

    And wouldn’t one need to be an ex-junkie and an ex-antidepressant taker too, to be able to compare the two?

    And what’s with this?

    “In the case of drugs like these, your doctor may object that this use is off-label. He may ask where’s the evidence? If this happens, you may need to find a doctor who is prepared to explore some of these issues with you.”

    So here, he advocates finding doctors to prescribe off-label, but every other example of off-label prescribing is evil and constantly pummeled by Dr. Healy.

    Which one is it?

    Horror stories of drug withdrawal are true and compelling and worthy of compassion and consideration, electroshock survivors meanwhile are dismissed when they talk about their own “adverse events”.

    And which one is it also?

    Off-label is evil, or find a doctor to do off-label?

    This guy makes me stare, and stare at the following warning:

    “Please keep comments civil and refrain from personal attacks. Comments that fail to meet this guideline will be removed.”

    It is very hard to control oneself in the presence of such a hypocrite.

  • It’s a good guide. And there is a conversation happening on this very topic in the madinamerica.com forums.

    I’m glad I’m no longer on psychiatric drugs. I used to be, that was a choice my government and the people who choose to work in forced psychiatry stole from me, and it is very important for those of you have had that choice ripped away from you, to consider carefully whether you ever would have taken these drugs had you been given informed consent.

    If your government coercion has died down, who knows, maybe you’re lucky enough to own your body this year and not currently be a government slave, maybe it is time to reassess for yourself anew, the pros and cons, of these drugs.

    One thing can be said for certain, while there may be a harm reduction approach to coming off psychiatric drugs, there will never be a way to reduce the harm done to so many people by the brutality and cruelty of forced drugging.

  • Why then wasn’t she “taken over” by the urge to drive to the store to buy more knives?

    And why did this intelligent choice making wonder drug, Clozapine, decide to target some other person in her life? Why the mother?

    And then why did the drug as the mother to hide the knives? or did the niece ask the mother to hide the knives. It’s hard to keep up with which decisions the drug is making and which decisions the niece is making.

    Why did she have to wait for the doctor to ‘take her off’, if she felt murderous, why would you wait for the doctor to make a decision?

    Could anything else have been going on in your neice’s life, like, for instance, being told she generally doesnt have any free will, because she is allegedly brain diseased?

    People can look at a knife, and have their doubts as to whether they can control themselves, but what is the largest seed planter of doubts about self control and free will in the mental patient’s life? psychiatry itself, not the drugs.

    Given the average mental patient cycles through many many drugs during their psychiatric drug taking career, and given no thought, can occur, until it occurs, there is a first for everything, from getting a certain job, never happened before, getting a certain haircut, never happened before, and staring at a knife, pondering what would happen if you picked it up and killed your mother, all these things are just human thoughts and actions, and life is short, given a new occurence is bound to coincide with the latest in the hit parade of whatever psychiatric drug the person is on, people tend to blame Clozapine, its a nice neat story, but fails to take into account the myriad inputs into your niece’s mind coming from a world telling her this is what mental patients do, they look at knives, and begin to doubt their agency, after all, that is what hollywood, and psychiatry itself, drums into their heads.

    Drugs can help, tip people to that state where they doubt themself three times more than if they are clean and sober, but drugs don’t in and of themselves cause good or bad human actions to be made.

    Just as we don’t put distillers and brewers in the dock for bar fight / DUI murders, people need to take responsibility for themselves. Or, if they are a parent of somebody, a so called “carer”, they ought to pay close attention to the process of psychiatric brainwashing that they all too often actively encourage in their own adult children.

    To let a four year old watch a violent movie is negligent parenting. To let a 19 year old slowly come to internalize the mental patient narrative of how they USED TO BE a fully equal human being with free will, BUT NOW THEY are a brain diseased automaton, is to basically hang your kid out to dry.

    And then we blame whatever drug, happened to be in the system of the person, on the week, month, year, that their self-doubt over their own free will peaked. Sure, maybe the drug played a role of some sort, but never enough to let the humans off the hook. There are many humans lying to, and filling young people’s head with self fulfilling prophecies of violence, psychiatrists are great at getting young people to doubt themselves. Psychiatrists are fanatastic at smashing self esteem and reducing a person to an anxious wreck who develops TOTAL perceieved dependency on the alleged expertise of psychiatry to solve their life problems. Every single nuance of life from then on, becomes to the person a script learned subtly, on how a mental patient is supposed to act, and think, and most importantly, doubt.

    People doubt themselves more than ever after being psychiatrized.You stare at that college application, you doubt. You’re a brain diseased former normal now, you’re not as capable as you once thought you were. You stare at that attractive potential partner across the bar, and you doubt yourself. You’re a labeled social pariah now, a brain diseased former normal, so doubt yourself, don’t try.

    Then comes a night, where you open the kitchen drawer, and see some shiny knives. You focus in on them in your drugged haze, and you start to doubt.

    I have no doubt, that the toxic self doubt, that psychiatry unleashed in the lives of the people it declares “brain diseased”, is EQUALLY, if not more toxic than psychiatric drugs themselves.

    Psychiatry’s unique ability to take formerly independent, self-assured, and capable, confident young people, and liquidate them into a steaming pile of toxic self-doubt, is staggering to behold, and to live through. It has no doubt played a HUGE role in hundreds of thousands of violenct crimes, suicides, whatnot.

    The drugs help the process along, but they are far, far, far from the whole story. Like a date rapist with their roofies, the real evil of the situation lies not in the chemical structure or effects of the roofies, or the liver of the victim.

  • I strongly disapprove of this article.
    I expect this comment to stay when the webmaster has figured out the massive problem with how this op ed was posted. Readers must click on the first link in the related posts, to read what was intended to be on this page….

    These two authors simply don’t get it:

    “Fundamentally, human behaviour is determined by neurotransmitter functioning”, they say.

    I know plenty of argumentative people who have aggressive responses to psychiatry, for very understandable reasons that don’t involve making wild speculations about their aggressive response being “caused by neurotransmitters”

    The article then goes on to blame the anger of young black disenfranchised afro caribbean britons who are being forcibly drugged, on liver enzymes.

    Where is the human understanding of why people forced into the mental patient role, the most degrading role in society, where is the human understanding OF WHY WE ARE ANGRY?

    Or is this site turning into biopsychiatry explanations-r-us?

    Did the authors of this article even bother to ask any people labeled mental patients why they are angry?

    OR DID THEY BURY THEIR HEADS IN THE LITERATURE AND WRITE A SLIPSHOD DRUG BLAMING PIECE THAT TREATS HUMAN BEINGS LIKE NOTHING BUT MEAT AUTOMATONS?

    And at the end they call for what will be presumably FORCED genotype testing…. disgusting.

    More pat conclusions from the land of Healy, the UK. Where drugs directly cause violence, and all bar fights in the history of man are caused by neurotransmitter effects of ethanol, no doubt.

    THE STORY OF DECISIONS TO CARRY OUT VIOLENCE ARE NEVER AS SIMPLE AS A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF BIOSPSYCHIATRIC CRAP.

    What neurotransmitter reductionist explanation will we pin a psychiatrist’s violence on? or the nurses’ violence against people labeled patients?

    Or will we blame a drug? maybe coffee.

    There is a human side to every human action. ASK A HUMAN TODAY.

    Or gaze into stats about livers, and black people, and one study about asians.

    Major tranquilizers are toxic, toxic, toxic… but one thing they are not, is the greatest cause of violence in psychiatric facilities. These drugs came about to tranquilize, to subdue, to shut people up, and they do this, very well.

    If there is any increase in violence as more minorities get put on community commitment in the UK, it might serve to ask them if they enjoyed being assaulted every two weeks with a depot injection, and from going from what they thought was the bottom of society, to a whole new bottom they never knew existed, the mental patient role. When the system itself is violent, and the job the staff in the system choose is violent, why is that massive amount of violence NOT EVEN COUNTED OR GIVEN MORAL EQUIVALENCY in this paper.

    Or…. you could wax lyrical about liver enzymes.

    Maybe someone could take the logic from this paper, and go and do a paper about bar fights and alcohol and race, too?

    This paper is a real come down in quality from the last two brilliant Op-Eds. A real come down in quality. In spades.

    How dare anyone dehumanize the violence in our community, to nothing but biology, when there is so much else to the story, and completely ignore psychiatry’s violence against us, and society’s violence against us.

    This is an outrageous paper now that I think about it more. This paper, is the exact logical equivalent of blaming ANY MINORITY GROUP’s rate of violence, on the chemical action of alchohol, and thier alleged inferior livers. Such a thing, would be scientific racism, pat biological determinism, complete ignorance of the cultural history of the minority group over the past hundreds of years of culture, and a completely offensive whitewash of the truth of the matter.

    In comparison,

    This paper blaming chemicals and livers for violence in my community of people with psychiatric labels IS DEVOID OF CONTEXT, HUMANITY, HUMAN EXPLANATIONS, AND UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE LIVE IN THE HORRIFIC DEGRADED POSITION OF THE MENTAL PATIENT ROLE.

    Poor areas of urban slums wracked by poverty and despair? whole communities of unemployed welfare dependency? fathers beating children, husbands beating wives? domestic violence, binge drinking, alcohol abuse daily, guys beating wives, punching people in the face, neglecting kids, WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED.

    ALL CAUSED BY ETHANOL, AND THE PERSON’S LIVER TAKING A LITTLE WHILE LONGER TO METABOLIZE IT!

    Or all “caused by” psychiatric drugs. No context exists in the world of the drug blamers.

  • “your post reminded me of a paper that was presented at a neuroscience conference (I did not write down the reference) to the effect that when schizophrenics report hearing voices, they register activity in the temporal lobe in contrast to talking to oneself during which there is no activity in temporal lobe.”

    And this is the problem with the quack profession known as psychiatry. They hear one paper presented at a conference, and proceed to change their view on a matter. There are papers that say exactly the opposite.

  • Great can we finally put to rest the ridiculous mindless citing (never properly cited) figure of “1% of the population” that we hear all the time. It’s up to the capricious psychiatry profession to name-call whoever it likes, at various rates, fluctuating through time, and I’ve NEVER seen the origin of the BS 1% figure. It’s a lie that psychiatry’s name-calling was ever static, any time.

    The fake medical apparatus of “journal articles” and “author researchers” in relation to psychiatric name-calling, is just what we are up against. These people think they are serious medical researchers.

  • Anything would be better than the hideous apartheid dating site ‘nolongerlonely’.

    http://www.nolongerlonely.com/

    A dating ‘for the mentally ill’ website where they:

    “encourage anyone considering membership to first consult with their psychiatrist and/or social worker.”

    And anyone who dares question psychiatry gets their profile deleted.

    Success stories include:

    “Judith
    A Mother’s Thanks

    I just wanted to tell you what a GREAT idea this website is. My schizophrenic daughter who was diagnosed about 4 years ago has had a hard time meeting people who understand her illness, and who aren’t fearful of her because of it.”


    Meeka
    Thankful Mother

    I read about this site on schizophrenia.com. I think what you have here is wonderful. My son carries a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and dating is painful for him. I just wanted to thank you for this outlet!”

    A dating site where people’s mothers speak for the people who use the site.

    Upon signing up you’re asked ‘diagnosis-check all that apply’, whereupon you’re offered a DSM menu.

  • 50,000. Hmm.

    49,000 odd war criminals and one platoon of heroes.

    At least we have established a beachhead.

    We could go deeper on this…

    50,000 psychiatrists = 40,000 spouses? who decided to marry a psychiatrist? That makes 40,000 spouses who voluntarily lie down in a bed with a psychiatrist, and many more than 40,000 who get mechanically restrained to a bed by a psychiatrist.

    50,000 psychiatrists = 80,000 children of psychiatrists? 80,000 kids who get read bedtime stories by a psychiatrist who loves them, and millions of kids who get their growing brains assaulted by a psychiatrist who views them as a malfunctioning piece of meat.

    50,000 psychiatrists = 100,000 parents who are just proud as punch that little Jimmy grew up to ‘help those brain diseased mentally ill people for a living ain’t he a good boy, rich and successful too’. (But of course many of his ex-patients hate his guts for the human rights abuses he carried out on them)

    I wonder how much money it costs the taxpayer when a psychiatrist is added to the world. Most psychiatrists are going to leave a litany of iatrogenic disease in their wake, millions of dollars in disability payments, millions in lost productivity from the people whose lives they kneecap and destroy…

    There was a fork in the road, at medical school, every one of them could have become a primary carer, or a cardiologist, and actually been of service to society. Instead, 50,000 menaces to society sitting in a football stadium cheering on their pseudoscience, signing innocent people’s lives away with their Abilify logo emblazoned pens.

    What time is it? Check the Abilify plastic wall clock. It’s time for this pseudoscience to GO.

    To prison.

  • Feedback. The forums, and the new blogosphere thing, and the recovery stories, and the op-eds, have always been too far down the main page. It’s like a scrolling down odyssey where your mouse wheel finger becomes arthritic. It’s a long way down.

    The New York Times website is seven columns across, five for content, two for ads.

    Instead of three across, this site could at least be four, to bring some of the content up to the eye level of the main page upon first sight.

  • “He was the son of an academic psychiatrist.”

    What a dangerous position to be in.

    ” The young man’s father commented that he also agreed, but could never voice this opinion in public because his peers would be highly disapproving.”

    Such is the group-think associated with psychiatrists. Imagine trying to find one brave enough to disagree with his colleagues if your very liberty depends on it. Good luck.

    Smelling patients? I didn’t know they did that. Sounds like an unpleasant part of the job.

    There is much more to the story of how psychiatry is in no way scientific than drug company studies. The entire concept of labeling unwanted behaviors and thoughts ‘medical problems’ is utterly flawed.

    The only benign form of psychiatry is not psychiatry really as it is known today at all, some form of counseling on life’s problems, is what I am talking about.

  • “There is one other new interactive feature we will be launching in the near future that I am excited to see in action. More on that soon!”

    A cryptic surprise? Hmm.

    I wonder what it is? Crosswords? Games? Psychiatry scrabble?

    A paypal donate button where we can fund lawsuits to destroy psychiatry?

    A call in internet radio talk show?

    Prizes? like a trip to a country with the least psychiatrists?

    I am curious now. I want to know what it is. Interactive, and coming soon, hmm.

  • People should be able to buy whatever drugs they want. It is their body. I like the idea of pharmacies 100 years ago. You could buy whatever you needed, including pain killers without being treated like a criminal.

  • This piece is utterly incoherent. I’ll never understand what is so special about this guy that he gets to be the sole syndicated columnist whose every blog post gets reposted from his personal blog, to here, a community where he’s never even graced us with his presence to interact with the madinamerica.com audience in the comments, nor tailored a piece of writing specifically for this audience. I just don’t get it.

  • “I’ve long been frustrated with transpersonal psychology for not having the courage or moral integrity of Szasz or Laing.”

    Laing forcibly drugged people at Kingsley Hall. Szasz wouldn’t dream of it. In terms of moral integrity, the two names don’t belong together. Szasz has it in spades. Laing was a different story. Nice cute theorist, but not much else. In my opinion.

    I like the secular psychiatric survivor movement. I hope it stays secular and gets even more secular.

    Romanticizing what gets labeled “madness”, ain’t the way to go.

    I’m pleased to see you have gravitated here though Seth Farber. You wrote a couple of books that are very interesting and an important stepping stone in the tapestry for people who are just starting to question psychiatry’s ideology.

  • Do they have community commitment forced drugging laws in Vermont?

    What will the psychiatrist who is being paid over 300 grand of the 1 million dollar budget be doing at this soteria house?

    When someone becomes violent, will they be treated like an ordinary criminal and the cops called, or a brain diseased criminal and sent to the locked ward?

    I say this, not to diminish this great success of funding and the promise it holds. I think it is great, but I have questions.

    I would also point out, that there is no way I could work with legislators and lobby for this like Steven has, he’s a calmer person than I am. If faced with a legislator, I want to know why they support violent and cruel forced biopsychiatry laws, and I find it hard to play nice.

  • There are some biographical details for Steven at the bottom of his recent Op Ed.

    Regular bloggers, like you, and not Op-Ed and Recovery Story writers get pride of place on the ‘about’ page with a photo and bio details, I guess it is just to save space, and it wouldn’t make sense for the site to fill up the about page dozens and dozens of head shots. People who have said they’ll make a regular commitment to blogging, get their bio details up on the about page. I hope Steven does become a regular blogger. His Op-Ed and recovery story, are both strong pieces of writing.

  • One of the best. A personal interpretation of your own life, snatched from the jaws of the ideology that would presume to impose its interpretation on you.

    But isn’t it tragic and sad, that if this entire essay were to be recited by the author at a commitment hearing, it would be used as further evidence of his brain disease and used to justify caging the author and assaulting his brain with forced drugging.

    While individuals can, with great painstaking work, carve out some solidity and freedom for themselves, society stands ever ready to snatch it away.

    Naming and shaming Dr. Grof, was necessary and brave.

  • Great article. Sad reality of the current situation. Ted your work now and in the past had meaning and your name and efforts will always be remembered with deep respect.

    The main problem is, 9 out of 10 people believe in the Church of Psychiatry’s fake brain diseases. When millions voluntarily line up to swallow the lies and the drugs, the minority complaining about having these beliefs forced on us the government, appear completely alien to the true believers.

    Not believing in psychiatry’s lies, in 2012, is like being a member of a small community in the middle ages who dared doubt the Pope and the Church. People learn to keep their head down, try and educate and protect themselves from the brain rapists as best they can, and try and get through this life intact.

    We are living in a world where most people are a member of the psychiatric cult. The cult members are overwhelmingly legally, politically and economically powerful, and think nothing of breaking any individual on the wheel of submission to their ideology.

    It is very dangerous, deadly, to be right when most of society is wrong.

  • ‘The authors conclude “that excess activation of the HPA axis and/or neuroendocrine abnormalities characterize the psychosis risk state for at least a subset of patients. Our findings further suggest that psychotropic medications may have a normalizing effect on HPA-axis dysfunction…’

    This is like finding unhappy people cry more, produce more tears, and attributing this to ‘tear duct dysfunction’. Another body blaming, biological determinist piece of research by people so convinced that distressing thoughts need to be blamed on dysfunctional bodily systems, they are willing to sell a doomsday song to these young people in the study. Pure evil.

    I’m glad I’m not one of those young people labeled ‘at risk’ by these quacks. Boy. They’ll be lucky if they get to adulthood alive with that much psychiatric meddling and scrutiny on them.

  • In other news all stressed out humans have elevated cortisol (known as the stress hormone), and stressed out humans who turn to heroin, alcohol, orgasms, win the lottery, OR turn to psychiatry’s major tranquilizer drugs, can artificially make themselves a little less stressed out.

    Oh and researchers have concluded their findings further suggest that winning at the race track may have a normalizing effect on HPA-axis dysfunction found in gamblers who have recently suffered a losing streak.

  • The “type of treatment” offered is less important than getting people labeled as depressed patients to believe that their despair, and that of their children, is a bona fide medical disease, and that the professionals who come bearing medicalized solutions to the age-old problem of human despair, are seen by those defined as ‘patients’ as possessing a solution to the problem.

    In other words, in direct relation to the degree of faith the believer has in the religion of therapeutism as it relates to human problems of happiness and unhappiness, so shall the believer find absolution in the anointed caste of mind-priests that the laity believes possess a special ‘service’ or ‘skill’ in solving life’s problems.

    If you’re a member of the therapeutic faithful, you too can offer your life’s problems to the endeavor of the hallowed and prestigious “international team of researchers” in the form of an offering called “data”.

    For one’s life problems, and one’s attempts to outsource the solutions to them to become a cherished and polished brick in the wall of the psychiatric monument is a great honor. For it is only with international teams of researchers parsing data that the age-old problem of human unhappiness will ever be cured and banished from this earth like polio. For it is a disease just like any other, according to the scripture.

  • Sadly people in the position of being “post discharge” (or whatever pseudomedical-hospital term one chooses to define what I will always call psychiatric detention), are in a state of potential awareness of the threat the professionals still pose to their liberty.

    There are myriad other factors too, more often than not, those sociologically and economically kneecapped by the machinery of forced government psychiatry are rendered dependent in their new psychiatrized period of life, on welfare money, and the occasional pittance thrown their way to induce them participate in such a survey, and the impetus to please the paymasters impacts on the answers.

    Psychiatry needs to keep up the myth that people who have had stolen from them their former equal status as normal human beings, are happy in their newly minted mental patient role, and willing to accept everything that comes with it.

  • Oh, what’s that? tried to read the article, but as usual it is behind Big Psychiatry’s paywall gate. They study ‘us’ and then you have to be a member of the power elite shrink club to even read the study.

    According to the abstract, these drugged, labeled individuals who have been led to believe they have undergone the ‘first episode’ in presumably a ‘long story’, are clearly individuals who maintain contact with government psychiatry, and given they are in Canada, some were probably on forced community drugging commitment too.

    All I can do is think back, think back to when I would ‘participate’ in ‘studies’ (Big Psychiatry’s extra extra sciencey sounding word for glorified surveys).

    When I would ‘participate’ in ‘studies’, and fill out questionnaires about my ‘happiness’ or my ‘mood’, a number of factors confounded me giving truthful answers:-

    1. I knew the brain rapists could have me brutalized at any given moment and I always made sure to tell them what I thought they wanted to hear.

    2. I knew admitting one was unhappy of despairing or had ever thought of ending it all was prohibited speech that could and would be used against me by the brain rapists conducting the study.

    3. I was a dazed, drugged zombie who was led to believe the researchers/professionals in the team and their colleagues were my ‘healers’ and that I was ‘sick’, I had great incentive to tell these people they were doing a great job, in surveys and to their face, not least because they could sign a piece of paper and have my consciousness molested by forced drugging at any time, but also because I needed to believe, at the time, that I was engaged in a legitimate doctor/patient relationship.

    The answers Anonymous might have given a survey several years ago, would pale in comparison to what I would give now.

    Any survey conducted in an environment of fear, power imbalance, cognitive impairment due to drugging, and forced definitions of ‘first episode’ or whatever has been forcibly defined onto these people, is a worthless PIECE OF JUNK SCIENCE.

    *Also, sample size is piddly and worthless.

  • My final comment. A comment carefully drafted to conform to the guidelines. Guidelines that rightfully demand civility.

    It’s hard to respond within the guidelines to an article by a blogger who talks a good game about humanistic interpretations and responses to the problem of human distress (aka ‘mental illness’), yet seems to reserve an exception to these humanistic responses for those labeled “seriously mentally ill”.

    Bob Fancher states above in his piece that:

    “The hypothesis that mental suffering is due to illness was never a bad hypothesis—and I believe, unlike a fair number of Mad in America writers and readers, that in some instances, it is true. ”

    I tried asking Bob Fancher what these ‘instances’ were, because I suspected my own problems may have been one of these ‘instances’ where as he says “it is true” that my mental suffering was “due to illness”.

    In response I was directed by Bob to go watch the film ‘A beautiful mind’. I can only think back to the most confused and harrowing states of mind depicted in that film, and report back that I’ve had similar experiences, extreme experiences, that fit in one way or another with what is depicted in that film, not that this proves anything about alleged “illness”.

    Other commenters pressed further for Bob Fancher to give an example of where the ‘line should be drawn’, between ‘illness’ and ‘broken minds’ and the ‘machinery not working’. In response, Bob offered a link to the blog of the researcher behind the Mitchell Laboratory.

    The Mitchell Laboratory conducts animal model research with a very mainstream and standard biological determinist approach, encapsulating the presuppositions of the alleged objectivity of psychiatric labeling, behavioral genetics, and ‘brain wiring’ neuroscience. On their site they say they research “altered brain wiring in conditions such as schizophrenia”. I don’t know how many of you have had your brain wiring examined and found to be “altered”, but apparently this is what they research.

    http://www.gen.tcd.ie/mitchell/

    Now I’m sorry to say I made some hot-headed remarks in this comment thread. I don’t like to feel misled, by clicking on an article, taking the time to read it, and trusting the editors of madinamerica.com to select bloggers who are sensitive to the audience that reads this site, when I see an article titled “why the medical model won’t go away”, and the blogger recommending as ‘evidence’ for the distinction he clearly makes between those who deserve the medical model, and those who don’t, I felt offended.

    I felt degraded, objectified, and shocked, that here, in this community, this site, whose stated aim is to ‘rethink psychiatric care’, that I would be in the same environment here as a blogger who seems to believe my problems and my experiences are to be solved and explained, by cutting up rat brains in a laboratory.

    I could go and get psychotherapy from the author of this piece. But in the back of my mind, I don’t feel I could ever shake the dismay I feel, that my psychotherapist would believe rat brains being dissected, are the key to solving the problems I had in my life.

    What I find more life affirming, and more respectful of human dignity, is when people believe that the problems I experienced can be understood in human terms. When someone writes a piece apparently criticizing the medical model, yet seems to, appears to, believe that there are exclusions to the humans whose problems he is willing to understand in human terms, I feel objectified, degraded, and othered.

    I prefer to spend time in an online community where I am an equal. Not someone who “science is going to explain one day”, if only the Mitchell Laboratory gets more grant money to slice up rat brains.

    I feel I should have been more moderate in my comments. I also feel if there are any bloggers writing for madinamerica.com who believe that if someone walks into their office with a “serious mental illness” label, that they are prejudged to be biologically diseased, genetically inferior, and the rightful target of rat brain research, that they are a blogger who doesn’t understand the sensitivities of this audience here, and what we’ve been through, and how degraded and dehumanized we have felt, to be defined not as human beings with understandable problems and crises, but as biologically inferior beings, so much so that science needs to produce a genetically engineered mouse brain to slice up, to understand.

    I don’t believe Mr. Fancher’s brain is diseased, nor do I believe Mr. Fancher has bad genes that explain his behavior and thoughts. Nor do I believe a researcher purporting to have created a rat/mouse model of Mr. Fancher’s brain is a “serious scientist doing serious research”. I wish he would extend the audience of this site the same benefit of the doubt. Until that day, I will be boycotting his articles.

  • I’ll try asking again…

    “Do you believe the medical model you criticize in your article, should be applied to so called ‘serious mental illness’ or not?

    What in particular about genetic ‘brain wiring’ researcher Mr. Mitchell, applies to this debate about the medical model? ”

    I note you say ‘tragically’. What I think is tragic is the prejudice to judge people’s crises as brain diseases.

  • Bob Fancher,

    I have been reading your article, and the ‘brain wiring’ biological and genetic researcher whose blog you linked to and recommended at least twice in your comments here.

    I’ve read all your comments. I have come to think you may believe something is genetic and biologically wrong with the “wiring” of people’s brains who’ve been labeled schizophrenic or otherwise ‘seriously mentally ill’?

    Is this the case? Do you believe the medical model you criticize in your article, should be applied to so called ‘serious mental illness’ or not?

    What in particular about genetic ‘brain wiring’ researcher Mr. Mitchell, applies to this debate about the medical model?

    In your career as a psychotherapist did you often work with people with serious mental illness labels?

    Do you yourself have a history of first hand personal experiences with your own problems that got called ‘serious mental illness’?

    I am trying to figure out why it is you seem to place so much stock in a brain wiring researcher and the film ‘A beautiful mind’? Is this the closest you’ve ever got to such experiences?

    (This comment does not breach the guidelines).

  • I left the first comment in this thread, and I should have trusted my initial gut feeling. I knew something was off about this article, and it is true, something is off about it. It’s a half-critcism of the medical model, and the author believes it is completely legitimate to medicalize some human thoughts and not others. The evidence provided that in some people “the machinery is broken”? well Bob Flancher has given us a guy who cuts up dead rat brains, and a Hollywood film. That’s about it.

  • “Have a look at the movie “A Beautiful Mind”–which, in fact, underplays the severity of Nash’s illness and overstates his recovery. If you don’t agree his mind was “broken,” there will be no convincing you, and there’s no point discussing it further.”

    Well there we have it. You believe Nash has an “illness”, and by extension, anyone who has the same label Nash got, has an “illness”.

    You’re absolutely right. There is no point discussing it further if you believe people in distress have “illnesses”.

    Maybe I should have just let this ‘argument from Hollywood movie’ stand on its own.

  • If the question is ever of something NOT biological, medicine has nothing to say, and the word ‘medical’ should never even be used. It’s anything BUT parsimonious. It’s a wrench of confusion thrown into the gears of understanding the problem, despite whatever easily misunderstood version of ‘it’ the ‘medical model’ you have in mind.

  • No. That’s not clear at all. Tell me an example of a LITERALLY broken, or ill, thought or feeling. And explain to me the ‘broken system’ which generated it.

    If you’re saying a brain is broken, prove it. If you’re saying a mind is broken, tell me how it broke, and tell me what you think a mind is.

    I’m very unconvinced of your answers.

  • I don’t believe in mental illness. That is, I don’t believe personal problems, minor or extreme, constitute bona fide medical diseases.

    I haven’t misunderstood Kagan at all. Kagan believes ‘some’ people warrant being called biologically diseased on the basis of their distressing thoughts. This makes him a half-baked critic, who still believes in a substantial amount of psychiatry’s BS.

  • “The hypothesis that mental suffering is due to illness was never a bad hypothesis—and I believe, unlike a fair number of Mad in America writers and readers, that in some instances, it is true.”

    This sentence is the weakest link in an otherwise good article. Please elaborate on what you meant by this.

  • “Person Who Has Had Encounters With The Mental Health System”

    Even calling it a mental health system is Orwellian. It is like saying don’t worry, we are from the government, we are here to help you, we have a system, and it is in place for your health, your mental health, all points I disagree with.

    People can use whatever language they want. It is pointless to believe everyone is ever going to disagree.

    My main concern is the language not be concealing the forced nature of it.

    So call a blanket group of people ‘service users’, expect a backlash.

    No one can define me as a patient when I’m not in a relationship that consists of anyone other than brute force.

  • That is a good answer. I still say those who are quick to blame heavily planned and clearly not impulsive crimes on drugs, are jumping the gun.

    Clearly too, there is much more hopelessness injected into the lives of people labeled SZ and this and many other facts should be factored in to the increased suicidality.

    I have experienced akasthisia, it was an unpleasant sensation, but I retained my ability to see right and wrong, and didn’t commit a massacre.

  • “Regarding the correlation between certain types of psychoactive drug use and psychosis (especially stimulants, marijuana, and hallucinogens), from the perspective of the model I’ve presented here, I would say that these kinds of drugs can loosen one’s cognitive constructs, which can be both beneficial when used carefully”

    I’m more interested at this point in your opinion of the contention that psychiatric in and of themselves, cause, violence and suicide.

    Not weed or LSD, psychiatric drugs.

    Thank you.

  • “More researchers should seek opinions from patients, no matter what strange jargon they use to describe them.”

    You fail to understand how utterly offensive and degrading it is when they label the people they violate by force as “service users”. It is even degrading for you to label us “patients” when we never wanted to by anybody’s “patient” and we don’t even consider the other side real “doctors”.

    Thus, this is like saying we should “take what we can get”, as if 19th century slaves should have provided 21st century style customer service feedback to the manufacturers of collars.

    This struggle is about way more than mere drugs. This is a battle for our very dignity as human beings.

  • My primary reason for having plans in place for a crisis to be safe from the “current established system”. If someone is “coming to your for care” they obviously believe their thoughts and behaviors, feelings, are a “medical problem” and it is their right to take that leap of faith and see where the chips fall.

    If “coming to you for care” includes people handed over to you by force, then there is nothing you can do to stop many of them being brutalized and traumatized for life.

    It was not the ultimate concern of abolitionists to offer a utopian solution on how ex-slaves would use their freedom. It is my primary concern that freedom be won in the first place.

    I didn’t “have the opportunity” to establish a solution for myself in the beginning, because that opportunity was stolen from me, by the government, and those in its employ who stand ready to rob those opportunities from people by using forced one size fits all interventions.

    I’m not chagrined to have you here. I believe for every coercive psychiatrist that is here, tens of thousands are not here, so it is good that you are here, and willing to expose yourself to the survivors of your profession’s actions.

    Now, and forever, I would never go to a doctor for anything other than a problem with my body. What I can say is that it doesn’t matter nearly as much what the solution, what the assistance, what the intervention is, so long as it is not something we DON’T want.

  • You see this?

    “What’s Hot This Week

    Most Commented

    The Hidden Gorilla (58)”

    The Healy articles that I don’t comment on, get like 5 comments total. That’s where Healy’s articles will be going from now on, into the memory hole where they belong. Because I’ve given up arguing with his acolytes.

  • Please.

    “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.”

    So everyone who chooses to cross a line and commit an outlandish crime, is suspected to be “struggling with delusions” by you?

  • Cheap shot?

    Healy exploiting a tragedy where 12 people died, BEFORE any news stories have EVEN confirmed the kid was on psych drugs, is a cheap shot at the families of the dead. He will latch on to ANY suicide, ANY violence, to further his agenda.

    Thanks for inserting yourself.

  • ““I trust in my visceral responses. Not only do I feel certain J. Holmes was taking prescribed psychotropic drugs, I believe, with equal conviction that most likely: 1) The statements and or presentation of behavior by Holmes that prompted Dr. Fenton to disclose her concerns to the threat response team (not going to look back for the *official* name of it), were her *patient’s* response to her prescriptions for *treatment*;””

    I was judging that statement, which is a ridiculous statement filled with blind faith. Not you, the person.

  • An argument from authority using the FDA! as something that is supposed to impress me? The FDA is worthless. The other worldwide regulators just copy what the FDA says.

    I’m just sick of everyone whitewashing psychiatric drugs’ role in the increase of Ipad sales. After all, we can use statistics to blame these drugs for any action we choose to ‘prove’ a direct causal link to.

    I don’t know about you, but I blame Afghan warlords for growing poppies when heroin addicts break into my house a world away.

  • Oh Lehrer was a good wordsmith, I’ll give him that. Thank you for your response.

    It’s peddlers of neuromythology that metaphorically shovel more soil on the graves people stuck in psychiatry are being buried alive in.

    If more and more people consume pop science BS about everybody being nothing but neurons, society is more and more primed to think there’s nothing wrong with the human rights abuses carried out against people with psychiatric labels.

    After all, if a pretty fMRI picture “explains” all things Lehrer says it does, pretty fMRI pictures can be flashed to the public as an excuse for us to be ushered into the gas chamber.

  • Dependency?

    “Dependency” is synonymous with the disease model of “addiction”. Another psychiatry creation I’d like to see thrown on the scrapheap.

    Habits are hard to break, but a habit is a habit is a habit is a habit.

    Habitual use of anything is a good habit, or a bad habit, it’s always a moral question, a normative question, and always hard to break.

    You push through, make the decision to stop, let your body adapt to not having the habitual substance in your body, and try your best to maintain without it. It’s all you can do.

  • My God. I really need to buy your book now.

    Listen I uncharitably told this lady to stop repetitively copying and pasting her thing about this, maybe I could have been more police. But I have seen that exact same text, multiple times on other articles, with zero further tailored comment from this person, so I just told her to expand what she had to say next time. The comment I left had been bothering me.

    But your answer. Was 98% perfect.

    You addressed physiological and neurological disorders, in the lady’s pasted and extensive list of things, you didn’t address drugs.

    What is your opinion about the contribution of drugs to thoughts/actions, and responsibility.

    This site plays host to a number of writers and readers who believe that psychiatric drugs cause suicides and massacres.

    I have long asked them why they believe in the power of drugs to cause people to make the choice to kill themselves, but not in the power of drugs to cause someone to purchase an automobile. Bear in mind, in recent days we have had plenty of people on this site claim that the Colorado shooter, who planned his attack for months, falls into this category. I mention this to head off at the pass any question you might have about impulsive actions.

  • Personally I’d like to see the “evidence” that psychiatric nurses are even real nurses. And the “evidence” that psychiatrists are real doctors.

    I think this is something we expected to take on faith. Like most things in the Church of Lie-chiatry.

    It’s sad really. The researchers lives are wasted, and other innocent lives who never asked to be sucked into their vortex of quackery are ruined.

    I’d feel sorry for them if they weren’t human rights abusers. I think we need to turn this “research” paper into toilet paper.

    This online service prints customized toilet paper maybe I will get some made up http://www.printedtp.com/

    What do you think? DSM toilet paper?

  • Hi Ted. I’m sorry, this is a really hard thing, but I have chosen at this point to remain anonymous on here. I’m flattered you liked my comment, and if you are THE Ted Chabasinski, you’re a hero of our movement, and I have read a lot about your great work.

    This site, is a big tent, and because it is so slick, and large, and one can easily see the potential of it, (bearing in mind it has been going less than a year), I too fell into for a time when I first discovered it, critiquing various elements of it harshly*. I have since grown to love it, it is a vibrant community and it was started in good faith by Bob Whitaker, someone who I am sure we both respect a great deal.

    I read your comment above as being a broad comment? and not specifically about the author/s of this article right here? I think Jonathan Leo has shown some courage in his work, he’s the guy who raised the ire of an elite medical journal http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/13/jama-editor-calls-critic-a-nobody-and-a-nothing/

    I had disagreed with Leo’s praise for the fabulist Jonah Lehrer’s science writing, that’s all.

    Anyway… if your comment was broad, and about some/many things you have read on this site, I can only offer that what the psychiatric survivor opinion of the “stock” of bloggers that are on this site is, needs to be tempered by the fact that while many of these writers might not be 100% behind our positions (or even our rights!), they tend to be closer to the mark than in many other publications, online or offline.

    *There is one psychiatrist blogger here, he’s not even a blogger here, his articles are syndicated here, republished here after originally appearing on his own site. His name is David Healy. If the topic of discussion is your critique/a critique of the state of this website and your disappointments with it, I must add, his work being syndicated here is my only great disappointment with this website. But I don’t call the shots.

    I will say I’m touched that you liked my comments, and I’m glad you’re here, but I do agree if what you’re getting at is, you can see this large community of critical of psychiatry people, and you can imagine the potential for us to build something bigger and better one day for our movement. But I respect this website, and I respect the good faith efforts of all the bloggers (Healy excepted), and it is still early days so please have faith.

    Soon I am told, there will be an internet forum available within this site for various discussions, general discussions, perhaps like the one we are having here.

    You have done great work in your life for the movement, and I thank you for that. I have also enjoyed the articles you wrote for this site and encourage you to write more.

  • If you see ‘author information’, and not just what country the journal is published in, it leads me to think the authors are from New Zealand.

    Not that the paper is worth a pinch of (censored).

    “evidence” based? Just more lies from a mendacious group of thugs, the psych nurses.

    Someone told these people when they were young, that people like me had a brain disease. This was enough “evidence” for them to then spend their lives coercing people like me for living.

    I don’t need these people to tell me what recovery is. I don’t want their “services”, but like all good thugs, they stand ever at the ready to impose their “services” on people.

    I would advise all persons not to participate in any psychiatric nursing research. It can be very dangerous. You can lose your rights very fast.

    If, per chance, you feel you have the freedom to refuse consent to be in their little “studies”.

    Anyone who classes coerced people as “consumers”, commits a further offense against those already victimized people.

  • Thank you. I agree the HVM has done a lot of good. I am just concerned about this message of passivity versus acknowledging active participation in the internal conversation.

    That is the first time I’ve ever tried to write anything about the HVM, I could be clearer if I spent more time on it, but since it kind of stuck out at me when I read the original article above, I thought I’d throw in my two cents.

  • You call that disgraceful exploitation of this tragedy a “good piece”? [Healy’s piece]

    ‘Healy’s book states, “the charge of brain damage from ECT is an urban myth” (p. 3) and “Therapeutic convulsions induced by electricity, by contrast [to epilepsy], do not harm the brain and can save lives” (p. 9). His statement, “ECT really does work in illnesses where drugs fail” (p. 7), directly connects to his work in criticizing drugs. ‘

  • “I trust in my visceral responses. Not only do I feel certain J. Holmes was taking prescribed psychotropic drugs, I believe, with equal conviction that most likely: 1) The statements and or presentation of behavior by Holmes that prompted Dr. Fenton to disclose her concerns to the threat response team (not going to look back for the *official* name of it), were her *patient’s* response to her prescriptions for *treatment*;”

    – Just read that everybody and let it be known the blind faith Healy’s acolytes work on the basis of.

    ‘Healy’s book states, “the charge of brain damage from ECT is an urban myth” (p. 3) and “Therapeutic convulsions induced by electricity, by contrast [to epilepsy], do not harm the brain and can save lives” (p. 9). His statement, “ECT really does work in illnesses where drugs fail” (p. 7), directly connects to his work in criticizing drugs. ‘

  • I’ve seen you copy and paste the same long-winded list on this site before. Perhaps next time you could come up with something specifically for our comment conversation instead of copying and pasting the entire contents of your blog.

    The mental confusion this list of drugs might contribute to, is by no means the same thing just because the BMJ, or you, decided to label it all “psychosis”.

    Next time a simple link to your blog, which you have included, would be better than pasting every word that can be found at that link.

  • I cannot believe I am hearing this:

    “We do not mean to single out Jonah Lehrer for criticism- he is undoubtedly one of our best science writers”

    You’ve got to be kidding me, this disgraced fabulist and liar, is someone the public will be better off without:

    The New York Times Book Review, criticized [Lehrer’s book] Imagine for its “many elementary errors” and “formulaic” approach, as well as for “Lehrer’s failure to grasp some fundamental principles of scientific thinking.”

    “More troubling is Lehrer’s failure to grasp some fundamental principles of scientific thinking. He uncritically accepts studies whose results support his argument, rarely bothering to discuss whether or how often they have been replicated. On the basis of one experiment, for instance, he claims that “being surrounded by blue walls makes us more creative.” Maybe, or maybe not. The researchers actually displayed questions on a computer screen with a blue background, and research on such “color priming” effects is hardly settled science. Perhaps Lehrer thinks the findings must be valid because they appeared in a prestigious journal.”

    “Nature called portions of the [his other] book into question based on current understanding of neuroscience”

    Scientific American has just said today

    “While his actions were largely interpreted as being an affront to journalism, they amounted to much more: a disrespect for and a betrayal of the fundamentally pure enterprise that is science.”

    Lehrer brought his profession into disrepute, jeopardized public trust in the New Yorker’s integrity, and brought shame to himself. I am glad he was caught out.

    “A more important scientific question, perhaps, is: How do we reduce the amount of time (nearly 20 years?) that it takes to reduce the impact of this bias and marketing, and learn the true utility of a new psychiatric medication?”

    I can reduce it down from 20 years to 5 seconds. Apply the following method: psychiatry can’t prove your brain is diseased, so why drug it at all?

    Done.

    Lehrer was a two bit neuromythology salesman and I’m glad he got caught. He certainly wouldn’t have admitted it out of guilt. He was remorseless until caught.

    One quote to finish, from Jonah Lehrer himself:

    “If someone is thinking about a math problem . . . then her prefrontal neurons are thinking about that problem.”

    I supposed he asked her prefrontal neurons what they were thinking?!

    But continue, Jonathan Leo, to believe he was “one of the best” science writers as you have said here in your article.

  • It is the drug blamers that presume too much.

    I take into account the vastly important human factors and life factors in these young men’s lives. Factors that can be easily understood, the context of their lives in the lead-up to bad crimes.

    You, just assume a “violent feeling” caused (you can’t tell me exactly how) by drugs, but you never assume a “generous” or a “lazy” or a “hardworking” feeling. It’s always the drugs nicely and neatly seem to cause the undesired behaviors and never the good behaviors.

    Next Healy article, watch me ignore it, and leave no comment, and we’ll see how it gets like 5 comments total. I should not even be giving Healy oxygen, and making his article look like it is the focus of the most lively debate.

    A stealth electroshock psychiatrist isn’t worth a second of my finite lifespan.

  • This is very good.

    I agree with most of it. I think “hearing voices” should/could be described in less passive terms, if one wants to change people’s minds about the medical model. Self-conversations that one doesn’t attribute to coming from oneself, is more like it. Or self-conversations disowned, character narratives involving internal conversations between self-generated speakers, is more like it.

    There is a reason these thoughts are conversations and “voices” instead of the sound of jet engines, or car-crashes. They have to be voices, and talking, and conversations, because that is how we think, in narratives and words. Of course, the rare exception would be if the trauma had something to do with a car-crash or jet engine.

    My point is, when the “hearing voices movement” doesn’t explain this, and just uses language that is so, well, passive, it tends to be interpreted in the public’s mind as “auditory hallucination caused by a brain disease”, now I ask, if it is an “auditory hallucination”, why wouldn’t it be a jet engine noise as often as it is a persecutory conversation? Of course, there is much more to the story than just the simple and passive, “hearing things”, what is heard most is words, conversations, and these are actively participated in, and are a thread of the narrative that the individual is running in their mind in this crisis, or just daily life.

    We all talk to ourselves, and hear our own mental “voice” all the time, it can be a strategy to disown a portion of this inner self conversation and assign its origin “elsewhere” as in, to “a voice”, or “one of several voices”, but just generally, I feel the so called “hearing voices movement”, has done a very poor job at communicating these facts, and has left themselves open to appearing dangerous, as if to appear under the control of external forces, using such passive language as “hearing”, when it is in fact a “participation” also. I think the stigma and mainstream media Hollywood narrative around people with psychiatric labels being controlled by “voices in their head”, could potentially be fueled and fed, in a damaging way, by the continued, deepening, and firming of the passive language of that the “hearing voices” movement uses, I’m also concerned about this exceptionalism that creeps in, as though people with psychiatric labels are a special breed apart, as though every human being doesn’t have conversations with themselves, or every child too, I know to some extent this movement has tried to point out that it is a “common experience”, I would say this is where I disagree most with the hearing voices movement, I say inner voice is a universal experience, it is just that only people with psychiatric labels are the ones who mostly seem to disown these inner voices, fall into the strategy of disowning them, disembodying them from their own inner voice, splitting them off into character narratives and conversations of more degrees of separation that the most people’s inner voice.

    When the mainstream public hears of a movement trying to normalize so called “auditory hallucinations”, they think of a brain auditory system gone haywire, and think of biology, hearing, ear drums, and brains, and a chaotically diseased brain randomly throwing up all sorts of sounds and noises. When in fact this is not the case at all, these are narratives and conversations with oneself and conversations with thoughts and disowned character narratives about your internal narrative.

    People who wind up being labeled by psychiatry with the “psychotic” label, tend to conversationalize the inner narrative of the mind a lot more than the average person, but I really do worry sometimes about what choosing to use the passive phrase “hearing voices” is doing to us. It seems to also contain an element of potential for its own self-fulling prophecy.

    I had been marginally aware of your book, hadn’t read it, but after this article, it appears to be a must buy.

    The first 75% of this article, is among the top 20 short form pieces of writing on this I’ve ever seen. It’s tight, taut and carefully organized prose. I’m not a fan of butterfly analogies though.

    When the mainstream public hears of a movement trying to normalize so called “auditory hallucinations”, they think of a brain auditory system gone haywire, and think of biology, hearing, ear drums, and brains, and a chaotically diseased brain randomly throwing up all sorts of sounds and noises. When in fact this is not the case at all, these are narratives and conversations with oneself and conversations with thoughts and disowned character narratives about your internal narrative.

    “The British Psychological Society (the BPS, Great Britain’s counterpart to the American Psychological Association), in its official report summarizing their understanding of “mental illness” and “psychotic experiences,” concluded that the various psychotic disorders may more appropriately be classified as variations of one phenomenon, a phenomenon that many have suggested we refer to simply as psychosis or madness.”

    How about they are variations on the phenomenon of THINKING! Everybody thinks thoughts sometimes that are, some of us, at various points, more extreme thoughts. I’m never going to identify as “psychotic” or “mad”. Each of those words are hate-speech to my ears, ears carefully honed after years of saturation in degrading stigma.

    The experiences that get labeled “psychotic” are indeed not brain diseases. And while point by point refutations of psychiatry’s crap are necessary, one simple, taut, and elegant proof is available to every single human being in the world if they want to personally test psychiatry’s insight into the brain:

    Take yourself to a psychiatrist and ask him to examine your brain. When you leave his office brain unexamined, as millions before you have, just reflect on that for a moment, reflect on the fact that this quack never examined your brain, or your genes, and then ask yourself, if this profession has any special insights into how YOUR brain is functioning. It doesn’t.

    If anything you’ve read above in this article (not this comment) is news to you, and you are starting to be convinced this profession (psychiatry) can’t prove distressed people have brain diseases, it might be decent of you to reflect on the fact that your government, in your name, forcibly confiscates the brains of many of your fellow citizens and hands these brains, over to this quack profession (while the person is living and conscious), it’s called forced drugging. It’s abhorrent, horrific and the most invasive thing your government does to innocent people by force as a matter of public policy. It is horrific to live through, it traumatizes its victims for life, and it must stop.

  • There is simply no way, that all or even most spree killers are on psych drugs. Did you look all over the world? What about the machete killings in China that happen with regularity? Spree killings predating wide saturation of biopsychiatry in history… etc.

    Merely focusing on America post late 1990s, you’re going to inevitably have a heap of kids on psych drugs.

    And this faith in statistics really, really, is not that compelling to me.

    Statistical analysis of a set of traits, when that set of traits is as infinite as something like human thought, decisions and action, is really overstretching the capabilities of so called RCTs to tell us much.

  • Cledwyn Bulbs you are a person after my own heart. Thankful to have someone circle the wagon.

    We need to concentrate on the human world, the human reasons, for why James Holmes thought the future was hopeless and that he hated the world so much to destroy lives. Rather than this ridiculous conjecture and the just-so stories from drug blamers AND brain blamers.

  • Psychiatry lied. And people died.

    This could have been me. The poor guy. And to think he had so much exposure through you, to alternative mental health.

    The faith in psychiatry’s quackery was strong, strong enough to suck him into the vortex of hopelessness.

    I believe millions have died in this way.

    I find it a little unsettling that his mother couldn’t say goodbye or that he had to deal with his mother’s sudden passing. That is horrible.

    What about his Dad? All alone, wife dead, son dead. What a horrible situation.

  • “I was forced to take this stuff for a while and well, I had memory loss, felt numb, had no real sense of time (time was flying by), could not think, it felt like there was an enormous pressure in my head, pushing from the inside out, horrible headaches.”

    Same here. Apart from the headache part. And you can see how this would not be conducive to planning a complex crime and training yourself in special weapons and tactics, bomb making, etc. as in Aurora.

    You did more than well to survive, and see psychiatry’s lies. Psychiatry lies and people die. All the time.

    I am sad to hear that you haven’t found enough freedom that you feel you have to keep your drug-free status a secret from your family.

    You may get that freedom one day.

    I recommend you stick around here, this is a good community where at least half the crowd here don’t view you as brain diseased.

    Thank you for sharing your story.

    It is of interest to me, and will be of interest to others, that you experienced this ‘prodromal’ idea being pushed on you as far back as 20 years ago almost! that was rare then. Common now, and sadly an ascendant idea in psychiatry, but I would be very interested to hear more specifics about that, the year, what they said, etc… where it was… (but not if that is going to give your ID away).\

    Thank you. Very good. You’ve done it, all on your own. That’s the thing we need to be encouraging more people to do.

  • Comparing rabies, a real disease with a definite course and demonstrated disease mechanism, to Healy’s long bow attempt, that he wrote before even a single news story has been published detailing James Holmes’ psychiatric drug treatment if any, is ridiculous.

    This stage often known as “furious rabies” for the tendency of the affected animal to be hyper-reactive to external stimuli and bite at anything near, is a completely different kettle of fish to Healy saying James Holmes’ four month planned massacre was “treatment induced violence”.

  • Yes Kermit, but we are not in any position to be having psychiatrists stand up in court and absolve carefully planning and precise deliberative spree killers of responsibility for their actions.

    And Healy has outdone himself with this one in terms of prematurity and reaching.

  • Why did an op-ed that looked interesting about the schizophrenia label, appear for five minutes on the right hand pane of the main page, and then disappear? Did it get deleted? I wanted to read it.

    On this exercise thing, more stating the obvious. Fitness increases well-being. Who didn’t know that? More of a natural, fighting fit state, less despair, a sense of achievement, less despair.

    “Depression”? what’s that? a word that’s been ruined by the quacks. I choose to use despair.

  • Your comment would make sense, if there was such a “medical condition” as “homicidal mania”. Unfortunately that’s just a psychiatric label that you, or some shrink will just slap on somebody’s months long massacre planning with absolutely nothing behind it but the label itself.

    I’m not in favor of psychiatric drugs. I’m also not in favor of mindless just so stories where we blame drugs for highly complex and deliberated spree killings.

    And if I ask, why this alleged condition of so called “homicidal mania” was executed with such precision and mastery on the high profile movie premier night that it was? I suppose you’ll tell me that’s “what this condition caused”.

    Whereas if someone sets their brilliant mind to planning and executing something beautiful, for months, instead of a massacre, perhaps a wonderful piece of art, you’re not going to label that diseased or the product of some “condition”?

    I think the selective tendency for people to look for psychiatric explanations for bad events, but allow that all the rest of human nature is not a “condition” just shows how deeply ingrained psychiatric beliefs are, even in the most surprising people.

  • The “role” of psychiatric drugs in a particular willed human action is unknown. Their role in the thousands of decisions the killer made in the planning of his crime, is drawing a long bow at best. At best, they could play a minor part. But there’s no confirmation he was even taking these drugs yet. There were plenty of angry young man massacres in the last 20 years where the kid was not on psych drugs. Just as there were plenty of auto purchases where the buyer was on psych drugs, and where they were not on psych drugs. Yet we don’t blame auto purchases on drugs.

    James Holmes demonstrated a months long, carefully calculated, well executed surprise attack, combining months of careful stockpiling of advanced weaponry and explosives, training himself to use both, and elaborate body armor purchases to ensure he would remain unbeatable until he had carried out his deadly crime.

    Oh and they are “talking about this”. Just look elsewhere on the main page for David Healy’s usual drug blaming schtick. It gets very tedious.

    The contents of the Columbine killers’ dairies, and the mutual synergy from egging each other on, provide a much more coherent understanding of that tragedy than a mindless Michael Moore-esque “blame the magic chemicals in psych drugs that override free will” type explanation (oh and the mechanism for such is handily never offered by those who support this conspiracy theory).

    Human tragedies are much better understood by looking at the human elements. The knee-jerk desire to blame a chemical compound, smacks of the simplistic thinking that we rail against from psychiatry explaining our feelings and behaviors with their ridiculous “brain disease (trust us)” theories.

  • This is a great story and I’m glad the lady won her medal. I was also thrilled to learn of your Judo Olympic past in an article the other day.

    Perverted sex is never a medical problem requiring “treatment”. It is a moral issue, and people who commit the crime of raping underage persons should be imprisoned for many years. It is unfortunate that these offenders are never allowed to pay their debt to society and put their criminal past behind them, even if they want to, because of psychiatry’s control over their lives.

    I would say that there are plenty of sex offenders who could have reformed and learned their lesson, but psychiatry lied to them and told them they had a brain disease and had no free will and this led to the same kind of vicious cycle of learned helplessness psychiatry creates in a lot of people it labels and drugs.

    There are sex offenders online looking at predator child porn, who want to stop, but psychiatry will always be there to whisper in their ear “You have a disease, your brain is making you click that porn, don’t even both trying to fight it, because you are sick you cannot help it”. Of course, psychiatry just pulled this out of its rear like it did ever other claim it makes.

    Psychiatry lied. People died. Same old story.

    We need to foster in society a deep respect for human rights. This includes getting the message to everyone, child rapists, psychiatrists, rapists of adults, that you don’t put penises, or drugs into people’s bodies against their will.

    We live in a culture where people treat prison rape as a joke and actually wish it on prisoners. We have a long way to go before people start respecting people’s bodies.

    If you violate another human being’s body, that is an evil act. Whether you are violating a child’s body, an adult’s body, an elderly person’s body, or the body of someone defined as a “mental patient”, you should get your damn hands off and go take a hard look in the mirror and apply the golden rule.

    The death penalty, infant circumcision, forced vaccines, fluoride in the water, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, we need to give up messing around with peoples bodies without asking.

    It is a big no-no.

  • I went back and read that again, Healy didn’t get the psychiatrist’s gender wrong, but so what, it is still patently obvious that Healy hasn’t read widely on the case. He fails to mention numerous factors that I outlined in my first comment on this article.

  • Of course drugs can be a tactic to decrease inhibitions. But saying they specifically allow someone to cross the line and that something about the drugs specifically overrides their previous feelings that prison was a deterrent is not something I can accept. It can be a factor, but never the whole story.

    Anders Brievik in Norway took steroids in the belief, as a tactic that it would help him be more aggressive on the day of the killings. But he had years to carefully consider if he was willing to cross the line.

    Child soldiers are given cocaine by warlords to make them less inhibited when they kill people. Sure, I agree to some extent, but there are always other factors at play, like the warlords will kill the kids, the kids know this, the general coercion of the situation etc..

    Alcohol leads to dis-inhibited sex, but there must still be personal responsibility for rapes occurring while drunk. Slap a warning label on all the psych drugs, whatever, and let people take personal responsibility.

    Healy is someone I’m not a fan of. I’m actually glad he wrote this article, because I believe his premature and ill-informed (he clearly has barely even read any of the facts that are available about the case, he refers to Holmes’ woman psychiatrist as a ‘he’, he demonstrates he isn’t even aware of the many points about the complex planning that I have mentioned), I’m glad Healy wrote this article. It’s a prime example of Healy drawing a long bow. He went too far this time, and went into the territory of exploiting a tragedy, in a far too premature way, to further his own ends, that is, making everyone believe in his simplistic stories.

    Anyone who is willing to put electroshock machine electrodes up to someone’s head and flip the switch, is not a very deep thinker about the human world and the reasons humans feel troubling feelings/thoughts and perform troubling actions.

  • You or I “know the reasonable/appropriate level of violence”?

    When someone is prepared to cross the line, they are prepared to cross the line. Some just get desperate enough to cross that line.

    Every person has it within to cross lines. Why some do and some don’t, is not a matter of anything mechanistic or scientific. It just depends on the choices one makes. The line-crosser has to live or die with the consequences.

    Read my comments on the other recent article, the one about gun control.

  • The choice of psychiatrist is up to the person.

    Unless it is forced, and you know I’m opposed to that. But Healy RARELY ever strays from your garden variety consumer antidepressant type “primary care” physician for “depression” type story.

    And people should know putting drugs in their brain is risky. I mean why would you even do it when the doctor can’t prove jack is even wrong with your brain?

    Not that I agree the drugs themselves are directly responsible for any particular human action, whether it be killing yourself or purchasing a meal.

  • “Most angry young men are deterred by the sanctions they will face, death penalty, life in prison, shaming their family by becoming a murderer, but you get the occasional individual who just doesn’t care and his hate overrides all other considerations, even respect for other people’s right to life. ”

    I will add, that very often, these young men, despite the “not caring” at the time of the crime, grow to care, care a lot, later in prison, and regret their actions. Some even cry like babies the first few days they are put in solitary confinement.

    You can get angry enough to kill, but knowing the actual feeling of killing, and seeing the people humanized after the fact, with the photos of their families, seeing the victim’s families in court, is a whole other kettle of fish.

    Many people know or can guess how horrible prison is going to be, and make sure to kill themselves at the end of the killing spree. Or even just comparatively small-time domestic murder-suicides show this to be true.

    Most people don’t have a clue what it is going to be like when they go from being the big powerful guy with the gun, to being outnumbered by government employees when they are in prison. It’s going to be a lot harder to kill yourself in prison, and they don’t screw around (the staff), they will take you down and put you in a suicide smock and throw away the key in a second, with even the slightest words of self-harm intent. Most people have no understanding of what it is going to be like when they lose their liberty.

    I think this is why you find there is a mix of spree killers who kill themselves, and those who surrender and allow themselves to be taken alive.

  • He did it because he hated the world and saw that he had failed / or been hampered by the world, into becoming the successful adult he dreamed of being.

    Some spree killers will tell you straight up.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1060869/I-did-I-hate-human-race-says-Finland-shooter-victims-included-women.html

    The handwritten suicide notes left in [2008 Finland spree killer] Saari’s dormitory explain he launched his attack because ‘I hate the human race’.

    Young men are the most aggressive and reckless kinds of humans, out of old men, old ladies, young ladies, children, etc…

    Growing up in the decline of western civilization, with stymied hopes and dreams (self-perceived), can make young men very angry. Most angry young men are deterred by the sanctions they will face, death penalty, life in prison, shaming their family by becoming a murderer, but you get the occasional individual who just doesn’t care and his hate overrides all other considerations, even respect for other people’s right to life.

    Most young men who get to a desperate place in their younger years, where they see no future, and feel they are a failure, whether because they failed, or “others stood in their way and caused them to fail”, will simply kill themselves and not others.

    More still, will just escape reality with illicit drugs and develop a habit.

    The daily task of guiding your life to a good and successful place, is the herculean task that humankind has been grappling with for thousands of years, it is the springboard from which all religious traditions come, all philosophy, and all schools of thought around how to run the eduction system and how to be a good parent.

    On how to live your life, this question is an open question. Family and friends try to guide young people, but sometimes people become misguided and lash out in hate and anger and kill.

    Pretending, and it is pretending, that there is a special class of “professionals” called “mental health professionals”, that because of their status and training know a damn thing about how to live a human life, is an utter myth. If you find the occasional useful “mental health professional” who does give good guidance on life, it is most certainly in spite of their training, and any assistance they will be offer will be just because they are a wise person. From the prescription pad, comes no wisdom on life. From knowledge of anatomy, comes no wisdom on how to live a human life.

    We are not like cars, there is no “mind mechanic” that you can take your kid to, and have him lubed and serviced. Tragically, with psychiatry’s simplistic creation stories, most of the world believes there is “help” for the James Holmes’ of this world behind the door of a psychiatrists office. There is none.

    Just look how successful his “treatment” was with this woman from the college he went to!

    If anything, going to a quack biopsychiatrist would have sent Holmes a message that life is cheap, and the humans he was about to blow away were nothing but a bunch of brain chemicals, and nothing means anything, because we are just neurons.

  • You’ve got to be kidding me. Let me count the ways.

    We don’t have any evidence Holmes was anything except Vicodin. You act as if we are there yet.

    You act as if a “psychopharmacologist” is in a special position to explain why a young man hates the world. He is not. He is in a position to explain how a drug acts on biology. And for someone who is in such a position, Healy spends hardly any time doing that, and usually only has low bows to draw about statistics, that’s all he really does around here.

    “Many young men are angry, fearful and alienated – it goes with the territory of psychosis.”

    These three emotions also COME WITH THE TERRITORY of being young! But again, you believe that by calling them a name, you’ve somehow proven that they have a disease or a condition or something.

    “They are criminologists, not mental health workers, psychiatrists, psychopharmcologists or social workers.”

    You seem to really believe there is something taught in these college courses to enter these professions that gives them a special insight into human nature, I reject this completely. Only very rarely, have I witnessed a member of these professions having anything insightful or true to say about mass murderers.

    Weapons of Mass Destruction don’t include small arms.

  • I’m supposed to believe a chemical created “a whole generation of hippies”. I don’t think so.

    Sure, these people have an unusual experience on drugs loosened them up to the possibility they already had inside themselves that they wanted to expand their worldview, but you can’t blame the chemical itself.

    Taking a trip to India, drug-free, did the same for many people.

    First person to mention MK Ultra wins a trip to Alex Jones’ website.

  • I’m not going to be entering into any debates about the merits of anonymous commenting. I already covered that yesterday. I will point out you just told me other people are allowed to post anonymously, but not me, and that you’d be more than happy if I just picked a fake name. A very interesting position.

    “Psychosis, treated or untreated, can last a very long time.”

    THAT, is if you think the act of slapping the label “psychosis” onto unusual fixations, thoughts and behaviors suddenly makes them a “thing” that “is” something “medical” and worth wrapping in one catch-all label like “psychosis”. That, is if, you believe, by calling these sets of thoughts and behaviors a name, you suddenly proven that they are thing wholly separate from other people’s usual thoughts and behaviors, which is not something I agree with.

    You act as if this amorphous blob of thoughts and behaviors is legitimately a “thing” that one can “get”, like AIDS.

    In other words, the Nazis believed very unusual things, and for a very long time, do we get to label them as having a “long lasting psychosis”?

    I don’t think so. And I don’t even consider that concept to be a legitimate “medical” concept.

  • That’s pretty wrong. Actually. Psychotropic is just a synonym in practice for psychoactive. Alcohol is psychoactive. People don’t get drunk to “feel ill and tired” or whatever you said.

    http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-psychotropic-drugs.htm

    Violence isn’t “caused by personalities”, in fact, I’m not even sure what you think a personality is. Violence can be the response to many different things, and people with lovely personalities commit violence under pressure all the time.

    You can blame the person for putting the drug in their body, too.

  • Thank you, I want to make clear though, that when I said that, it was nothing against the author of this piece, Gina Nikkel, I’m sure most days, in a non-crisis, I’d be more than happy to meet her and I’m sure she’s a personable person.

    It was I hope clear, that it was a statement about how very important it is, that only people who share my views to a large extent, are who I feel could guide me in a crisis.

    I have plans in place, to a large extent, on what to do in a crisis. I’m very fortunate to have been able to cultivate a wonderful understanding on this issue with some family members and friends, for instance. I am well aware some people don’t have that kind of understanding. In fact, tragically, all too many people have family members who are gunning for their “loved one’s” rights to be immediately stolen away in a crisis.

  • Psychosis is just a pseudomedical slapped on a crisis where someone is thinking and feeling things someone doesn’t want them to think or feel. Affixing the “early” or “first episode” prefix to it, just further compounds us deeper into the mire of viewing these experiences as part of a grand “illness narrative”, and while the program described sounds less and probably is less damaging than mainstream psychiatry, and good, I’m all for that, when I see the way it is peppered with management language, and the artifice of technocratic intervention into something so human and profoundly individual, I weep for this world.

    I’d never be part of such a program. Anyone who prejudges my problems as a “health” problem, or the “first episode” in presumably a “course of illness”, is someone I’d run a mile in the other direction from.

    “to offer medications judiciously when desired or needed, consistent with scientific evidence”

    Is this code for forced drugging? If they are not desired by me, am I going to be subject to someone else’s interpretation of when they are “needed”?

    When a response to human problems of distress and crisis as said to require rigorous standardized training, needs to play on the prestige of Harvard Medical School, when it is filled “teams” of people with M.D after their name, when it is littered with the soulless management speak that infects the corporate world, and yet claims to be ‘person centered’, excuse me while I go and forge my own plan for a person centered response to any future crisis with people who actually know me.

    The Finland stuff IS obviously much, much, much, better than the standard crisis psychiatry intervention, and if we are going to live in a world that thinks there is such a thing as experts on the crisis a young person they’ve never met is going through, then let this positive move continue. I’m glad these people are training in Finland, I’m glad they won a grant, I’m glad it wasn’t funded by the government or pharma, good, it’s good, but it’s not what I’d want.

    In a crisis I wouldn’t want to be anywhere near anyone who thinks nothing of the medicalized phrase “first episode psychosis” coming out of their mouths.

    But if anything can play a small role in stopping the depraved violent ordeals governments put young people through when they label them psychotic and detain and drug them, I’m supportive. I just wanted to express the reasons I wouldn’t want to be in the room with anyone who interprets what I’m going through as a “medical” event if the S— ever hit the fan again.

  • There can be no gun control, these laws are only people control. Control of people willing to abide by the law.

    Just like the war on drugs, a war against guns would be futile.

    People are correct to fear the government, and to fear the police. The police are very dangerous people. Just ask Kelly Thomas if he were still alive, whether he felt safe from the Fullerton PD.

    You can’t stop tunnels and couriers with drugs coming over the border, can’t stop people growing and manufacturing their own drugs, and you certainly can’t stop gun magazines being available.

    In China, with strict gun control, people go berserk with knives, if so and so percentage of murders use guns, and you feel you could change the weapon to knives, go ahead.

    “and seek to protect themselves by killing those whom they’ve identified as the cause of their fears.”

    Spree killers aren’t seeking to protect themselves. They hate the world, they want to destroy themselves and some people in it. Getting life in prison or the death penalty is a form of suicide by cop. James Holmes knew is life would be effectively over post-shooting, even if he didn’t actively shoot himself in the head at the end of it. He wrote to women to come visit him in prison on his internet dating site profiles. He knew the consequences.

    A few dozen/hundred people have been killed in these angry young man gun massacres.

    Governments, on the other hand killed hundreds of millions of people last century alone. Democide, see link.

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

    The most pressing question is can the individual in the modern era get through his/her life without the government taking their right to life and liberty away somehow, not how can they get through life without be among the 0.00000001% of movie theater patrons who have been gunned down.

    “Ordinary citizens, rather than clamoring for more controls on guns, rush out and buy them.” I guess the people have spoken then.

    At least this article was better than Healy’s, the one immediately preceding this, I’ll give you that.

  • ” drug that made him feel the urge to murder his customers when they entered his shop.”

    I suppose he didn’t spend over four months planning and buying body armor and building bombs? This comments section, is allegedly supposed to be about THIS ARTICLE, about Healy feeling the Aurora massacre was relevant enough to his schtick to write an article inspired by this massacre. I’ve labeled it exploiting a tragedy to further his own agenda. I stand by that.

    Google ‘set and setting’. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_and_setting

    People bring all sorts of preconceived expectations and things into the drug taking experience.

    People who have been told all their lives that the first time anyone ever touches heroin, they’ll become a junkie, are much more likely to blame the drug when they develop a bad habit.

    I agree, drugging your brain is rarely a good idea, but this article right here above, is about Healy drawing a long bow calling a long term planned, well executed spree killing, “treatment induced violence”.

  • “Psychotropic drugs can change behavior not by controlling people like puppets but by changing their very thinking, personality and world view entirely.”

    Hahaa “worldview”, yeah right. There’s a drug to make someone change their politics? You’re a biological determinist, there’s no point arguing with you.

    I will say that who I am, what I think about things, how I view things, is a result far more of what I’ve seen and done in my life, than the small biological influences on my temperament, which are not even understood in the slightest.

    If you really think some drug turned Holmes into a carefully planning, gun training in the desert, internet store body armor purchasing, bomb making manchurian candidate, good for you. Just understand I don’t buy it, and agree to disagree. No further comments.

  • “Not sure what a “just so” story is. ”

    Then google it!

    This sudden personality change is a dead end. Look at the changes in his life. He was under a lot of pressure, and he was young, people grow into different people with each period in their life.

    Massacres, rapes, murders, wars, ARE normal. Imagine a year without them, it would be a very abnormal year.

    You see unusual human behavior, and your first instinct is to blame the brain. Look at the human world.

  • “And I will point out that it is POSSIBLE that Holmes may have been taking antidepressants the whole time he was plotting.”

    So what? are you saying the drugs impaired his planning/plotting or enhanced his planning/plotting?

  • “Indeed, as the drugs build up in a brain they could induce the kind of final action taken in Aurora.”

    What a load of rubbish. A just so story.

    I’m anonymous because I choose to be and this is the internet it’s quite common and not unusual. I’d further point out that you could be operating under a fake name, or I could have just as easily chosen a fake name, and you wouldn’t be haranguing me about anonymity because you apparently truth the veracity of whatever name someone chooses to use. Or that anyone tomorrow could just as easily leave a comment and label it Rob Levine. Your faith in the objective reality of internet identification is utterly misplaced, I suggest you jettison it and stop bringing up irrelevancies about internet commenting.

    My thoughts are very uncommon in the general public and the psychiatric community. I don’t believe psychiatry is a real medical profession, and I don’t believe in ‘just so’ stories to explain human actions, whether they involve claims resting on unproven “disease” mechanisms (schizophrenia made me shoot up the theater), or unproven drug mechanisms (drugs made me shoot up the theater).

  • Healy drew an incredibly, non-credibly long bow with this one, by exploiting this tragedy to further his agenda.

    He called this “treatment induced violence”. Sounds pretty definitive to me, combined with the repeated use of “caused by”, that he really believes in a direct causal relationship between molecules in drugs, and complex human actions. He comes bearing nothing but statistics, ever, and his supporters attempt to water down how unsavory this article actually is, but far from being some “loading the dice” final straw argument that you water it down to, you never hear him talking like you have just done in your comment.

    Every “bad” action someone with a drug in their body ever took, is an “adverse event” in Healy’s worldview.

  • A driver who can competently drive his car, is not impaired, and won’t be wearing a DUI.

    A carefully planning, skills-learning, armaments and armor acquiring, bomb building, venue choosing, premeditated spree killer, is not an impaired spree killer.

    But you’ve got a couple of “statistics from David Healy” so you’re “right”.

    Bizarre.

    “I really believe that he became dissociated on drugs and felt his mind slip into a fictional movie world. ”

    Yeah right. A fictional movie world where you elaborately plan a massacre. Whatever.

  • It must take a lot of courage to leave a personal attack about my anonymity and fail to address any of the points I made about the complex, deliberative, carefully coordinated assault carried out in Aurora.

  • More fantasist nonsense from Healy.

    I suppose SSRIs made James Holmes plan his attack for months. Four months prior he made his first purchases of ammunition, purchases that were to be among many, many deliberate and calculated purchases made both online and in stores.

    I suppose SSRIs made James Holmes diligently research and purchase up to 20 separate pieces of equipment, weapons, body armor, and bomb making equipment.

    I suppose SSRIs told James Holmes to pick the opening night of a big movie for maximum press exposure.

    I suppose SSRIs have everything to do with the fact that James Holmes had dropped out of college and that he was facing eviction from his apartment.

    I suppose SSRIs caused him to mail a package stating his intentions to kill to his psychiatrist.

    I suppose SSRIs caused him to practice shooting in the remote mountains northwest of Denver.

    I suppose SSRIs caused Holmes to carefully research and teach himself how to construct elaborate home made bombs and grenades that tested the skills of bomb squad members charged with clearing them.

    Healy is shameless in his desire to latch on to any suicide, ANY violent event, and tie it to his livelihood, blaming drugs for complex human actions.

    Healy is very similar to the E Fuller Torrey crowd, in that they too, monitor the press for violent crimes and use them to advance their agenda, in their case for forced treatment, in Healy’s case, he can be counted on draw his long bow at any opportunity. It is embarrassing and deeply offensive to the victims families who have been the victims of the man who is charged with murder with DELIBERATION among many other charges.

  • “I didn’t notice any concern whatsoever about the millions and millions of “patients” who have been labeled, railroaded, drugged and forgotten by the helpful psychiatrists who have been so married to their misconceptions.”

    Rarely does anyone in society show ANY concern. Tiny rays of light here and there, like on this site, but rarely.

    We’d have to be the most openly discriminated against minority in society.

    After all, there are laws on the books that make it illegal for us to even own our own bodies, where we can be targeted for forced drugging and forced electroshock at any moment.

    The people who rape our brains for a living are respected pillars of the community. We have a long way to go in this fight.

  • These superstitions get ugly, as ugly as sin, when we know these researchers drive to work past the panhandlers they consider “brain diseased”, the difference between the guy begging, and the highly paid researcher safe in his locked BMW on his way to his shiny research facility, is the guy begging might be a lost individual deeply struggling and down on his luck, he might even have a minor criminal record, but the ‘researcher’ is the moral equivalent of a scientific racist in that he wouldn’t have the time of day to even look the panhandler he labels ‘schizophrenic’ in the eye, let alone entertain for a second that there isn’t something deeply unnatural, defective and inferior about that man’s brain, and ‘it’s only a matter of time’ before neuroscience proves him correct.

    Like a scientific racist who leans on and has ultimate faith that science can be rallied to prove members of the race he hates are biologically inferior, the ‘researcher’ believes it is only a matter of time before he can scientifically ‘explain’ my base inferiority, and the biological inferiority of everyone else with a psychiatric label slapped on them, or anyone who dares exhibit even for a second, any of the proscribed ‘abnormal behaviors’.

    This world might not be able to prove we are biologically diseased, but it never misses a chance to remind us how unworthy of being considered equal members of the human race we are:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57481971-503544/mcgoverns-vp-choice-offers-romney-a-cautionary-tale/

    And to think this farcical belief in our biological inferiority is codified in laws that can see us forcibly drugged at a moment’s notice.

    For shame. Thank God for sites like this that at least provide some semblance of the truth of these matters.

  • Funny satire, good piece of writing. I must admit, when I first saw the small excerpt on the main page before clicking on it, it said Ted Chabasinski special to the New York Times and I thought my God they’ve let one of us near the levers of media power.

    Of course, on this 40th anniversary of the Eagleton Affair, we are reminded that they would never let anyone smeared with psychiatry’s labels near the levers of power.

    Psychiatry is the ultimate credibility/reputation/equality destroying ritual in the modern era. And it is a ‘ritual’ more than it is anything else.

    If you want a reminder of how much contempt the world has for people with psychiatric labels, look no further than present reminders from the ruling class, of how important it is to weed out potential defective human beings in the race to pick a VP candidate:

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/books/elector_shock_O4TQqWOjGOXy3yhDN5OHTK

  • Great find Kermit. They have NOTHING. And now big pharma is turning its back on them. Good for all humanity.

    I just love how the author, after his decades of baseless faith in finding ‘new drugs’ is extinguished, goes on to recalibrate his propensity for mindless and baseless faith, this time directing toward a vague faith in neuroscience instead of psychiatry.

    In the end, this well compensated former drug company guy, doesn’t get it. ‘It’ being who the hell is science to label certain thoughts and behaviors “diseased”. The hubris seeps from their pores. Every hour of every day.

  • Absolutely amazing. A real uptick in quality here in the articles over the last few weeks.

    Amazing, topical, olympics coming up, and wonderful new link from the brain blog at the start too.

    Wonderful.

    It is just a wonderful piece. And I didn’t bother to read all the naysayers who left comments at the bottom of the brain blog link, because I knew, “You have to stop listening to people who tell you it’s not possible”.

    So stop listening it is, haters are going to hate, and naysayers are going to say nay.

  • Good article. Speaking of drugged, did anyone see how drugged the Colorado shooter looked in his court appearance? Clearly they’ve been drugging him hard.

  • I was agreeing with you. The Slate article I showed you, was meant only to point you down to the bottom of that slate article to the ‘show comments’ section where you will see hundreds of people versus 1 or 2 lone skeptics, claiming their despair is a disease and that psych drugs ‘treated’ their brains.

    “I have seen a drastic increase in people (mostly wrongly) reporting to me their self-diagnoses, and (again, mostly wrongly) describing their significant others in diagnostic terms, in the twenty-seven years I’ve been practicing.”

    I know, disgusting. It is so sad to see humans degrading themselves and others by painting life as being so simple.

  • Read the hundreds of comments at the bottom of this Slate article if you want to see how in love people are with the ideas of psychiatry.

    Despairing people, led to believe they had a medical problem by authorities they trust, will pop those drugs and sing the praises of the drugs until the bitter end…

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/07/13/antidepressant_critics_argue_that_there_s_no_such_thing_as_an_antidepressant.html

  • Good article. Sadly psychiatry has only doubled down on its efforts to violate the bodies of children in the decades since.

    If you’ve ever worked in forced psychiatry and ever laid a hand on a child/adult/old person in an effort to force something into their body, psychiatric drugs, electroshock, or a penis, you’re just as bad as the disgusting abusers in this article.

    And believe us, this is the 21st century, you can’t silence us any longer. The stories of the abuse you carry out for a living will be disseminated far and wide. You cannot hide. If you work in forced psychiatry, you are on the wrong side of history and morality and we will be exposing you and your vile trade.

    Never in the history of forced psychiatry have the perpetrators been at so much risk of losing their ‘what happens behind closed doors stays behind closed doors’ protection.

    I love how this article names and shames the actual thugs who worked at Bellevue during that time.

    May the descendants of Doctor Lauretta Bender see and read and feel the shame this medical criminal brought to her family name.

    Some of her victims should sue her estate.

  • Altostrata, I know that you believe that drugs that the unhappiest people in the world take ’cause’ the decision to end one’s life to enter the human mind and for those deeply unhappy people to execute this decision.

    I know you believe this. Great. By all means.

    I don’t share the bulk of your beliefs about the issue. I don’t agree with your simple narrative about an issue that I consider to be vastly more complex than you or Healy seem to paint it as. Just deal with it. Let us agree to disagree.

    Just because I don’t believe your simple story about drugs and human decisions, it doesn’t mean you should be making personal attack posts, labeling me some Ayn Rand fan (I’m not), insensitive to the relatives of the dead (I’m not), and you also ‘encourage’ everyone to ignore me (childish).

  • This is a fascinating case study of a psychiatrist who appears to only have ever read Whitaker. (I love Whitaker), but I’m just pointing out, this is fascinating, it shows how the psychiatrist’s faith in his “profession” has been ever so slightly chipped away at, but he still believes in the bulk of psychiatric dogma. Fascinating.

    I read the whole thing, and at the end, there was a sting in the tail… “child psychiatrist”… wow, that is always like a straight shot of whiskey to read that…

    Kids!

    Suffer the little children.

    The contention that one should go back to the classical psychiatrists who defined unwanted thoughts and behaviors as medical problems in the first place, is outrageous.

    I’m giving this guy a partial/mostly a pass, because he’s clearly a newbie to thinking critically about psychiatry.

    I will say this though,

    Your medical education is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine when it comes to helping people/children get through their life.

  • “I say this from current experience orientating, as a newly-hired professional, to an acute inpatient psychiatric unit in the Boston area. ”

    I am not clear on this.

    Do you make a living ‘working with’ involuntary ‘patients’, as in people who do not wish to be ‘worked with’?

    If not, thank you.

  • When I consider driving, or killing myself, while on alcohol, I don’t blame the alcohol.

    Or on nicotine, or on caffeine.

    Did you know 20% of this week’s suicides were smokers?

    Time to update the warning labels on the cigs?

  • That was a very reasonable response. Thank you.

    A number of times, is the answer. Eventually you get the message that those who wish to have their way with your body will not tolerate any resistance. Resistance is futile in a situation like that.

    But you never forget your first.

    But let’s not get sidetracked by that, like I said, you gave a very reasonable response.

  • “Nurses Confront the Myths of Psychiatric Drugs” – wrong, this is one article in one journal by one psychiatric nurse.

    Most so called psychiatric ‘nurses’ are happy to play the role of psychiatry’s paid goons, and think nothing of carrying out psychiatry’s dirtiest work of all, the hands on violation of people’s bodies by violent force.

    Every psychiatric nurse has victims who hate their guts.

  • “Since 2005, Paroxetine, first marketed by GlaxoSmithKline as Seroxat/Paxil, has carried warnings of birth defect risks.”

    “These family doctors aren’t aware of the risks of dependence or birth defects, and so don’t warn.”

    How do these two things line up? There’s a birth defect warning label on the drugs, but the doctor’s allegedly aren’t aware of the risks?

    Taking any drug is a risk. Why don’t people take personal responsibility for the risks? Now there’s an idea that won’t be popular on this thread.

  • I consider ‘mad’ to be hate-speech.

    I put up with it being in the very title of this website just because I know of this is the word many people happen to have cleaved onto in a ‘reclamation’ way. And it is in the title of this fine website, so what can you do?

    But when I hear it, my heart skips a beat from the endless semantic wounding we are subjected to in the countless slurs that are given to psychiatrized people.

    But don’t get started, the “mad” movement has debated and debated endlessly semantics for decades. I have my view on the practice of reclaiming slur words, and I accept other views. We could waste a lot of time on this.

    We all hopefully pretty much know the things of which Cornwall speaks and what he has in his heart is not objectionable, so there is no real problem.

  • Great news! The folks at Jannsen Pharmaceuticals are sponsoring a new $50,000 award to ‘reduce stigma’.

    Details of this pointless PR exercise can be found at:

    drguislainaward dot org

    Award judge Pat Kennedy (of the Kennedys of Massachusetts fame)

    said:-

    “This award is inspiring and recognizes the need to change the way people think and feel about brain conditions.”

    Brain conditions huh?

    I don’t remember anybody examining my brain before heaping the stigma on me. Do you?

    Patrick Kennedy is of course just the guy we need in our corner:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_J._Kennedy#Personal_issues_and_incidents

    So, $50 grand from drug company coffers is a couple of seconds in quarterly profit, and a small price to pay for a nice sounding press release that makes it look like the company is the ‘advocate’ for the group of people it profits from lying about and stigmatizing.

  • Every instance of forced drugging, whether it be in Gitmo, or in the general ‘mental health system’, is an instance of the political abuse of psychiatry.

    It shouldn’t surprise anyone that there were and probably still are psychiatrists working in the interrogation programs.

    Psychiatrists willing to use government force have an uncanny ability to sleep at night after dishing out torture. And an uncanny disrespect for the human right of people to own their own bodies.

    People are just bags of flesh, brains in vats, to be drugged to these people. People willing to engage in forced psychiatry don’t view their forced subjects as equal human beings deserving of dignity and human rights.

    This is a good instance of reporting.

    For people who don’t want to be in an elderly nursing home, people who don’t want to be in a psychiatric facility, children who don’t want to be in foster ‘care’, and people who don’t want to interrogated at gitmo, there’s always raping their brain to shut them up and make them pliable, thanks to our friends in psychiatry.

  • Very good comment. I reiterate what I said above, this MAY be a good development and I wish this lady the best.

    But, ‘consumer’ is with me and many people, the dirtiest word.

    A plantation slave is not a ‘consumer’ of employment services.

    A death row inmate is not a ‘consumer’ of lethal injection drugs.

    A rape victim is not a ‘consumer’ of sexual services.

    A rendered CIA terror suspect is not a ‘consumer’ of waterboarding services.

    An Afghan woman accused to adultery is not a ‘consumer’ of Kalashnikov’s gunsmithing services.

    A person labeled brain diseased by quacks who don’t even examine brains and held down and injected is not a ‘consumer’ of psychiatry.

    The same person ordered to front for regular injections on AOT under threat of immediate detention and violent forced administration of same drugs is not a ‘consumer’ of community based psychiatry.

    The primal scream of involuntariness, coercion and institutionalized violence cannot be silenced and sanitized with language synonymous with voluntariness.

    The brain rapists, associated policy wings of the brain rape / coercive apparatus of which NAMI has been a strong part, must shelve the designs they have on other peoples’ bodies, because other peoples’ bodies should not be on the table as something that is accepted to put things in to by force.

    A society that has a system of wholesale violence, putting things into, doing things to, the bodies of the unwilling, is a society in need of a push back.

    Our body, our choice. Non-negotiable.

  • I agree that there is rampant publication bias, I agree that medical journal editors are bought and paid for by pharma.

    I agree that most RCTs pharma puts out cannot be trusted. I don’t trust shrinks who get paid to be drug blaming expert witnesses in court either. Especially the ‘stealth ECT psychiatrist in the reform movement’.

    I don’t believe in straight out saying a drug ’caused’ a suicide.

    What kind of person volunteers to be paid to be in a study?

    http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/01/antidepressants-bad-drugs-or-bad.html

    How common is ‘suicidality’ in everybody?

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DepressionNews/50-college-students-felt-suicidal/story?id=5603837#.T_6Hz_X6icI

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/health/2012-05/02/c_131563140.htm

    I believe it is demeaning to paint people as automatons with no free will on psychiatric drugs.

    People who are psychiatrized, that is, indoctrinated into the tenets of the medical model, are made to feel they are the passive victim of an active brain disease, and therefore that they are at the mercy of this brain disease (that they believe is real), and I just hate to see a simple just so story told about drugs.

    Some kid on SSRIs, who is crying himself to sleep at night believing he is doomed to a life of ‘chemical imbalance’ despair and a drug carousel, who impulsively decides to rig up noose in his closet and hang himself, is still a human being with intentionality, an actor, instead of the endless grinding debate about the garbage drugs put into his body, what about garbage ideology put into his MIND?

    Say this kid does kill himself, he’s ‘on’ two things, the drug, AND the ideology of helplessness and hopelessness instilled in him by the shrink his mother carted him off to see and get a label and a prescription.

    The kid has been led to think he is defective, that his most important organ, his thinking organ, is defective. A pervasive feeling of ‘there is no way out’, ‘there is no point’, can be brought about by such a belief.

    If he kills himself, the mother buries him, and as his casket descends into the ground, people are blaming SSRIs. Does anybody see what is wrong with this picture? Even IF, someone from the drug company gets put in prison, and millions in restitution is paid, who is going to be held accountable for allowing that young person to lay in bed ruminating on his falsely ‘hopeless’ situation? Who is going to be held accountable for allowing the kid to believe he is a diseased brain? That he has no active part to play in the solution to his problem other than to be at the mercy of fraudulent neurochemistry technicians?

    Maybe, ANY psychoactive drug, can increase impulsivity. That doesn’t obviate the fact that it would demean the memory of any dead kid, to simply make a blanket statement blaming SSRIs for his decision making, which still remain acts of human intentionality.

    Garbage in/garbage out with BOTH neurotoxic pharmacological crap AND psychiatric ideology.

    To read some of the unbelievable conspiratorial musing on this site about the Columbine massacre, or Mary Kennedy’s final solution to her life of dysfunction and despair, is something I find demeaning. It sometimes, many times, comes across as if there is a suite of people who believe fervently that if these drugs were never invented, these complex human events would never have occurred.

    On the FDA, there is no reason to trust any institution. Trust in public institutions is at an all time low, and set to plummet even more in the coming years. The FDA is a big government institution no more trustworthy than the CIA. If you were filmed by an unmanned drone unloading a truck in Pakistan, the President of the United States can order your summary execution from a missile strike operated by a 23 year old with a joystick thousands of miles away.

    The government doesn’t care about us. Big business doesn’t care about us. Big science and the closed shop of Big Academic Journals don’t care about us. Big psychiatry is out for their own prestige and they don’t take prisoners.

    The most worthwhile activity on the internet in relation to so called mental health is to provide resources that people who’ve been misled can come across to make their own responsible decisions to stop believing the lies. When this site does that, it is among the best resources around.

    Questionnaires filled out in some room somewhere by a disparate bunch of people who believe in psychiatry enough to step into that room and get paid 40 bucks, are never going to lead to ‘good’ science on an event as complex as human self-killing.

  • You seem to have overdosed on wikipedia fallacy lessons.

    Now would like to answer my question and tell me what a psychiatric ‘misdiagnosis’ is, and what a correct ‘diagnosis’ would look like?

    Or did SSRIs cause you to write that comment?

  • http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com.au/2010/05/ssris-and-suicide.html

    A conclusion cannot be made.

    A drug might exacerbate existing propensities for certain thoughts.

    A desire to go on a cruise ship to Spain, is a desire too.

    My largest concern, is that the proponents of SSRI blamed suicide, are on a giant flight from personal responsibility, and still believe in a ‘safer’ ‘medicine’ being ‘developed’. Which by extension, one can conclude they believe despair is a brain disease. The largest and most prominent SSRI blamer on this site, also strongly believes in electroshock.

    I believe ‘drug safety’, is a waste of time and a distraction for a world that quickly needs to realize human problems in human lives are not medical problems at all.

  • Can you tell me why a drug would cause someone to think of strangling their neighbor rather than think of taking a vacation to Spain?

    “We are also keen to know more about their views on what causes depression”

    – these people are taking a drug to alter their brain function in response to their problem. What do you THINK their views are on what causes depression? !

  • RFK Jr. accused his late wife of spousal abuse:

    “The abuse accusations describe a living nightmare. In the affidavit, Bobby wrote that Mary attacked him with scissors while he was in the bathtub and even ran over his dog.”

    (I suppose the drug blamers believe SSRIs caused her to pick up the scissors and run over the dog, too.)

    “Mary’s violence and physical abuse toward me began before we were married,” Bobby wrote. “Soon after Mary became pregnant with our first son, Mary, in a sudden rage about my continued friendship with [my ex-wife] Emily, hit me in the face with her fist. She was a trained boxer and I got a shiner. Her engagement ring crushed my tear duct causing permanent damage … Mary asked me to lie to her family about the cause of my shiner.”

    (A classic hallmark of an SSRI effect, I suppose the drug blamers will say)

    Things got worse after Bobby filed for divorce two years ago.

    (Maybe Bobby was on SSRIs and this is why he filed for divorce, maybe Bobby’s lawyers were on SSRIs and that’s why they helped him file the papers, maybe the paper manufacturers were on SSRIs and that’s why they made the paper that the divorce papers would go on to be printed on)

    “Her depression deepened, according to her housekeeper, and she was twice arrested on DUI charges.”

    (Driving under the influence of SSRIs!!!!)

    “A major blow came days before her death, when she learned that Bobby would likely get temporary custody of the children. Bobby felt Mary, who reportedly suffered from Borderline Personality Disorder, needed an intervention.”

    (She was a lifelong psychiatrized, labeled, drugged person, whose head was no doubt filled with the hopeless disease model lies of psychiatry, but drug blamers would rather blame SSRIs)

    “Mary is a wonderful, generous, kind, and wise person but depression and illness are now killing her. I know you have told me that her frequent suicide threats are not real. I do not believe this is accurate. I see her now sinking into a terrible darkness. She desperately needs a family intervention.”
    (SSRIs later caused her to search on the internet for how to tie a noose)

    “In the meantime, Mary had performed Internet searches on how to tie a noose, and asked her housekeeper’s husband to pick up a rope, which she claimed she needed for a sofa she was making.”

    (She was making the sofa because SSRIs told her to)

    “Bobby and the housekeeper found her hanging in the family’s barn on May 16.”

    (Bobby and the housekeeper followed the trail of SSRI packs laid out on the ground on the way to the barn)

    “Mary and Bobby wed in 1994 and had four children together, Conor, 17, Kyra, 16, Fin, 14, and Aiden, 10. ”

    (All the childrens names resemble the names of SSRIs if you blur your eyes).

    In conclusion, SSRIs, SSRIs, SSRIs….

    If they had never been invented, no one would ever kill themselves after a life of unhappiness and recent custody disputes.

    Did I mention liver enzymes?

  • I liked it better when the Foreign Correspondent section was a separate section and not blended in to the main body of articles. It allowed me to avoid reading it.

  • Kennedy commits suicide, sadness and free will blamed, responsibility assigned to the human agent who decided to hang themselves.

    Recent devastating marital separation and lifetime of failure to kick bad alcohol habit implicated in terrible despair.

    or

    Magical thinking related to evil molecules in psychiatric drugs miraculously subverting the quantum mechanics of consciousness, evil drug makes disembodied brain of Mary Kennedy get out of bed and shower, put on clothes, eat breakfast and then gives us all a stunning crescendo of turning Mary into an automaton who rigs up a noose and kicks out the crate from under her.

    Liver enzymes also implicated by those in the know.

  • I cannot believe the level of drug blaming on this site.

    Most sad and desperate people in the western world are on SSRIs. Many sad and desperate people in the western world kill themselves every year.

    Whenever this happens, apparently the drugs are going to be blamed for magically causing a ‘bad’ decision to be made. Never a ‘good’ decision, only the bad decisions.

    And the mechanism of action for these drugs subverting human free will is left unexplained of course, and something we are expected to TAKE ON FAITH.

    Whenever THIS site gets littered with things we are expected to take on faith, it goes downhill.

  • The violence starts with defining a person against their will as a “patient”. They don’t want to be anybody’s “patient”, yet here they are, described and defined by the more powerful one in the equation as a “patient”.

    People have the natural right to not be made anybody’s slave or “patient” by force. Psychiatry spits in the face of human dignity millions of times a year.

  • “But then on the other hand she sees a silver lining because the chemical imbalance theory has supposedly removed any negative stigma: ‘the acceptance of depression as a biological illness has been hailed for removing shame and stigma from the condition.'”

    Of COURSE ‘bio-lie-o-psychiatry’ has increased stigma. It’s created a ritual whereby formerly equal human beings go through a period of distress, and come out with the rest of their community believing they are under the control of a brain disease.

    Psychiatry can claim all it likes that it doesn’t believe in ‘chemical imbalance theory’, who cares!? They DO, DEFINITELY believe in brain disease theory, regardless of the obfuscations.

    They are happy to let every legislator, politician, and judge, believe there is something ‘scientifically provably’ wrong with the brain of the person who is is about to have their brain confiscated from them and forcibly drugged or electroshocked in a court room.

    The real question about emailing reporters and so on, is how did we as a people become so entranced and unthinkingly worshipful of the medical profession, that we believe in BS just because it comes dressed in a white coat.

    Take the Anonymous questionnaire, the battery of tests designed to conclude how ridiculous this is:…..

    1. Do you take HIV drugs?

    2. No, of course not, because I don’t have HIV.

    3. How do you know you don’t have HIV?

    4. Don’t be ridiculous, I know because I’ve never tested positive for HIV. Why would I take toxic drugs if I don’t have HIV? You’re crazy man.

    5. Do you take neurotransmitter altering drugs?

    6. Yes.

    7. Why?

    8. Because I have a chemical imbalance and I hold my HIV status to a higher standard than my very thinking organ.

    9. Some thinking organ, that.

  • Strict grammarians would say people who use the word ‘misdiagnosis’ implicitly or tacitly believe in a correct diagnosis.

    When psychiatric ‘diagnosis’ is nothing but a bastardization of real medical diagnosis and amounts to nothing but name calling.

    Or do you believe there is a ‘correct’ label in the DSM for you, that you ‘should have got’?

    And by extension, that I should have got?

  • And if anyone thinks I’m engaging in hyperbole… they wouldn’t be called (neuroleptic) brain-seizing drugs if was wrong, would they?

    One day, psychiatry’s PR rebranding will bury the ‘neuroleptic’ tag just as deep as it buried the ‘major tranquilizer’ tag.

    You see, the Bush white house rebranding torture as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’, just as psychiatry rebranded major tranquilizers/neuroleptics as ‘antipsychotics’, or electroshock as the relatively benign sounding acronym ‘ECT’.

    You’re being manipulated every time you utter the APA diktat phrase to describe any of psychiatry’s brain disabling arsenal of drugs or labels.

    You, as in anyone. Not directed at Sandra.

  • Major tranquilizers are effective in getting people to shut the (censored) up and sit down and not be any trouble.

    This is why they are violently forced into the bodies of the group of people who may be having at a given point in time, thoughts or beliefs that are labeled as ‘sick’, by ideologues who believe that thoughts and beliefs can be literally ‘sick’. Ideologues who don’t examine anybody’s brain but label said brains ‘diseased’ anyway.

    This is also why major tranquilizer drugs are forced into the bodies of troublesome demented old people in ‘care’ facilities, and also why they are given to unloved foster children.

    These drugs are only given to shut people up, people who society has decided the following for:

    1. Someone wants them to shut the (censored) up.

    2. That these someones want them to shut up is more important than their human right to own their own body.

    That is, enslavement, violation, human rights atrocities, disgusting maximally invasive rape of the neurochemistry of innocent human beings, is acceptable, when the ‘other’ is a powerless human being, and more powerful others have decided to shut them up with tranquilizer drugs.

    The more brain disabling the tranquilizer drug is, the more they shut people up. The new tranquilizer drug cited in the article above, obviously is not as brain disabling as the original chemical lobotomies.

    Maybe that’s good news that you’ve isolated an ineffective major tranquilizer drug in lurasidone.

    Maybe I can beg and plead with terror and fear on my face to my captors in the quiet room next time for them to rape my brain only with this new lurasidone drug. Sort of like a rape victim who begs her attacker to put on a condom. As they hold me down and pull my pants down maybe I can suggest lurasidone instead of thorazine, so that after they’ve had their way with me and my body, I can have some of my wits about me to instruct a lawyer and try and hopefully fight to get ownership of my body back from the gang rapists in psychiatry.

    The message from psychiatry has always been this:

    Don’t you dare think thoughts psychiatry considers to be ‘diseased thoughts’, and if you do, psychiatry will be off to get a court order to make sure psychiatry can take swift ownership of your body, load you full of tranquilizers, and then you’ll learn to shut up and be a good little government defined ‘mental patient’ drooling in your chair watching televangists on the common room tv not causing any trouble with your thoughts that were labeled ‘out of order’.

    We’re not waiting for studies or data, we are waiting for our basic human right to stay as far away from a brain rapist quack as humanly possible.

    Or in language I might have used if I wasn’t a brain rape survivor:

    ‘We seek the right to refuse consent today and forever, in a legally binding way’.

    Welcome back to the fray, Sandra. Ain’t it pleasant to interact with the wasteland of forever raped and traumatized victims of your profession?

    I maintain that the millions of brains psychiatry has entered and violated without consent represent a primal, visceral scream of the darkest side of humanity, a level of violence and violence and violation only revealed elsewhere in war, violent crime, and the holocaust.

    Actions by human beings, against other human beings.

    Not to be confused with nature’s violence, tsunamis and hurricanes, or cancer eating your bones.

    No, to be a survivor of psychiatry is to be a survivor of the violence of other misguided, overly legally empowered to rape your brain, human beings.

  • That’s the most bizarre ‘outreach’ I’ve ever seen from a psychiatrist to scientology. Thank you for sharing it.

    Of course it is only valuable as an artifact of bizarre ‘outreach’, nothing else. Ablow is the hatemonger who wrote a horrific piece about Chaz Bono.

    Ablow notes the accusations of abuse against scientology but makes no mention of the institutionalized abuse psychiatry carries out every day against countless helpless captives.

  • I think it’s telling, and speaks to how separate the world of ‘researcher’ and ‘clinician’ are from the world of the people they hold out at arm’s length and examine as if they are specimens, that over 90% of the ‘in the news’ section of MIA.com brings us articles that can’t even be read by people without an institutional paid subscription to the content.

    The rarefied world of the privilege of even reading about what these so called ‘experts on us’ have to say about ‘us’, is hidden behind expensive paywalls.

    That says a lot about the whole enterprise. It’s an ivory tower quagmire of piece by piece alienation from the real human beings this enterprise claims to be in some giant human scientific endeavor to ‘help’.

    It might be ‘in the news’ for people with institutional subscriptions to academic journals, but it’s certainly not ‘in the news’ for the average internet surfing serf.

  • The government forcing you into the mental patient role is not a ‘perception’. It’s an objective fact.

    “Individuals with early psychosis viewed themselves as being of lower social rank and inferior in relation to matched controls, and also reported engaging in submissive behaviours more frequently and felt more entrapped by external events.”

    You tend to feel pretty “entrapped by external events” when your government has raped your brain and stolen your human rights. Not to mention smeared you with the stigma of being criminalized in a way, as in the stigma that comes from being forced in to the mental patient role in society’s witch hunt psychiatry rituals.

  • This problem is much more complicated than Reich’s understanding of it. Psychiatry’s snake oils would never have become ascendant in society if it weren’t for the unholy alliance between government and psychiatry for generations.

  • What lovely, enlightened, caring Senators these are. They only want drugs used to curb the behavior of people they label ‘mentally ill’, and not lovely old ladies with dementia. How lovely that they are selectively fighting for one group’s rights while throwing the rest of us under the bus.

    The article doesn’t even explain why it didn’t pass.

  • Altostrata, not only would your screen name be a good name for a drug company, it sounds like a drug company name, as in ‘I own stocks in Altostrata’, you keep hitting me with this ’32 year old’?

    Who is the 32 year old? there is no 32 year old.

    Dupre began working at the escort agency when she was a teen, and she was in fact a runaway. She was one of dozens and dozens of hookers from the agency that the ‘Manhattan Madam’ ran, and sure, so what if that particular girl was 22 and 3 years into her prostitution career when she became one of the many? so what?

    The escort agency had dozens of girls, hundreds over the years, many of them under 20 years of age. Dupre was 19 when she joined the agency.

    He was considered a ‘hobbyist’ and is reported to have hired dozens and dozens of girls.

    Some of them would likely have been under 20 at the time he ‘met’ them.

    Your vigorous defense of a Governor who was a ‘john’ multiple times a week to countless exploited women is perplexing.

    I guess anyone who throws you a bone in your attempts to blame drug companies for suicides is worth defending to the hilt eh?

  • “On being discharged from the hospital after the overdose my psychiatrist upped the venlafaxine dose to maximum, I was still very flat”… shouldn’t this, according to your ‘molecules in SSRI drugs magically take a hold of the particle physics that make up human consciousness theory’, have made you a guaranteed suicide death?

    You were unhappy enough to take the leap of faith to believe a shrink’s story your unhappiness was a brain disease right? otherwise you wouldn’t have swallowed the drugs.

    Unhappy try to kill themselves all the time.

    An anecdote isn’t enough to convince me of the magical ‘selective’ powers of some drug to turn you into a suicidal automaton.

    I would have to ask why the drug didn’t turn others into bull-riding, astronaut training program entering, school teacher becoming automatons.

    Apparently drugs only get blamed on the unwanted decisions in humankind.

    Any drug which allegedly only causes the bad behaviors listed in the bible, is decidedly an innocent drug, and the drug is the victim of human wishful thinking.

    It was very ‘unlike me’ to do anything I hadn’t ever done before in my life.

    A true believer test:

    If I gave you 3 million bucks to buy 100 chimpanzees, give them all 44 magnum handguns, and a supply of whatever drug you choose to blame suicide on, how many would turn the gun on themselves?

    Or does it depend on them not being just a biological organism but a civilized animal who knows what a gun trigger does?

    Something to ponder.

  • The first person in the family to be labeled ‘schizophrenic’ by a quack, will no doubt have heaps of exposure to the quackery that is psychiatry throughout their lives, and be more amenable and likely to drag their kid off to a shrink to get a label slapped on them at the first sign of any difficulty raising the kid.

    What this study has found, even though the clowns who conducted it don’t realize it yet, and won’t ever, is that families that believe in the BS that is psychiatry, are more likely to drag other family members to a quack shrink’s office for some labels and drugs.

  • “Dupré described leaving home at age 17 to escape a broken family and abuse”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Alexandra_Dupr%C3%A9

    No exaggeration. Would you like to retract your allegation I exaggerated?

    There were plenty of hookers, of various age, the star one, was in fact a teenage runaway.

    And I maintain slapping a pharma company on the wrist by taking 3 weeks revenue from them is nothing to write home about.

  • “biopsychosocial” is as you say, nothing but a lie to cover for the biobiobio model.

    Who can take a biopsychosocial true believer seriously? let’s say for a moment I’m willing to take such a person seriously. That it’s a ‘three pronged’ approach. The first one being ‘bio’.

    Ask these people what they believe is the ‘bio’…. and you get nothing but the standard biopsychiatric articles of blind faith.

    Run.

  • Just another example of psychiatry’s name calling. If the world stopped listening to the name calling and stopped taking the name calling seriously and stopped being deluded into believing the name calling is scientific, psychiatry would be out of business. Psychiatry is the most deadly bully all teenagers must face at the end of the run of the gauntlet of other lesser bullies.

  • “I was glad to see that the New York Times‘ reporters covering GlaxoSmithKline’s $3 billion settlement tipped their hat to former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.”

    Yeah, because Eliot Spitzer, a guy known for his unprotected sex with teenage runaway hookers, is well known for his valiant efforts to stop human rights abuses and hates to see toxic drugs put inside teenagers’ bodies…

    “Davis, 32, said she first knew Mr Spitzer, 49, as “James”, one of the biggest spenders among the more than 10,000 clients she amassed in five years of running escort agencies in Manhattan. Although he “seemed nice enough” at first, he later drew complaints from the girls that he “was getting rough and too aggressive”. Mr Spitzer hated to use a condom and would try to trick girls into unprotected sex.”

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/governors-sex-secrets-laid-bare/story-e6frg6tf-1111118859395

    Yeah right, Spitzer, keen crusader for the youth of New York state huh?

    And the GSK fine is 3 weeks revenue.

  • “It still seems reasonable at this point to say that for any individual, there are many potential paths to psychosis.”

    You act as if ‘psychosis’ refers to some objective thing. It doesn’t.

    It is just a label slapped on people who believe things others don’t want them to believe, and do things others don’t want them to do.

    You are not speaking to somebody who takes seriously the names mental health professionals call people and experiences.

    You’re lucky, you happened to reply to my very final comment on a David Healy post. I’ve decided since I have no respect for his quack drug blaming and court case ‘expert’ gravy train, I’m never commenting on one of his articles again.

    Because drug blaming is as intellectually bankrupt as brain blaming in a world where both the brain blamers and the drug blamers ‘simply believe it to be the case’.

    There will be no further correspondence from me on this here.

    Anyone who uses the phrase ‘idiopathic psychosis’ is obviously in the tank as a medical model person, and hence a WASTE OF MY TIME.

  • I didn’t know you chose the word, I thought you were saying THEY used it in the article.

    Btw, I, and people, wouldn’t have to use capital letters ever, if we were offered an italics button.

    But I’m not asking you to give us an italics button.

    I think you should put a paypal donate button on the main page so people can donate money to this site, and then they give some of the money to you, and whoever it would be appropriate to spend hours getting us an italics button, the running of the site, hosting costs, and the change distributed to charities that are worthy.

  • Breggin is being just as pseudoscientific as anyone who uses the A word here when he uses the word ‘spellbinding’.

    It is NOT a molecule in the drug that is leading someone to believe in psychiatry’s belief system.

  • A horrible article. The guy who wrote it is sitting on the fence, having a bet each way, and believes there are people with ‘chemical imbalances’ or legitimate biomedical mental disorders or whatever he says I couldn’t be bothered finding the exact quote. If his article is this lame, I doubt his book will be any good. A book about ‘growing up in the era of psych drugs’, from a guy who believes in brain disease causing human problems? no thanks.

    A very middling effort but what do you expect in the mainstream media? miracles?

  • Whenever I hear the word ‘overmedication’, I reach for my brick to throw it through the computer screen.

    There is no child on the face of this earth that deserves to have his or her growing brain violated and raped by a psychiatrist, parent, social worker, foster parent, flooding their NOT EVEN DISEASED brain with toxic drugs.

    NONE.

    There is no ‘overexecution’ for opponents of the death penalty.

    There is no ‘overenslavement’ for people against slavery.

    There is no ‘overmedication’ for opponents of children being drugged and abused by quackery.

  • Insight has always been the trojan horse for justifying more violent atrocities and torture against those labeled mentally ill by the labelers.

    There can be no ‘treatment’ for a fake disease, only ritual, and both sides playing along, or believing in it, cult-like.

  • Exactly beyondlabeling, it’s just label shopping, doctor shopping and label shopping, until they’ve found the name for their pain that they either originally wanted, or one they can be happy with.

    Forced drugging outside the walls of the psychiatric facility, is not a topic where the word ‘stakeholder’ should ever come up. The only person who holds a stake, is the rightful OWNER of the human body being brutally chemically raped by the state. No one else holds a stake, if they think they do, they are slave owners.

    Aside from that, I could write reams on how utterly repugnant and disgusting Kendra’s Law is, and how anyone involved in touting it should face their own kind of Nuremberg trial, but I haven’t got time today.

    A criminal took away Kendra’s right to life, so New York state took away the right of 10,000 people to own their own bodies. Sounds fair? only if you value the life of people with psychiatric labels infinitely less than you value the not yet labeled.

  • what is a drug of sin?

    who’s to say?

    ________________________________________

    Kermit. Immediacy, a blinking cursor, a white box begging for text, and a simple one click and it is published forever, is the enemy of refined, careful thought. I fell down sometimes, meant no disrespect. Especially to RW.

  • It’s not just some people’s natural aversion to having a boss that is worthy of mention, it is worth mentioning too, that once someone is labeled, with a serious enough label, they are a pariah in society, and the choices for employment come down to:

    1. Hide your label and psychiatric history in shame, and make your way in the world of the non-labled, working a normal job, burying your past, hiding the truth about what society does to people it labels ‘mentally ill’, and of course, making your living, getting ahead in this world, and leave in the dust and forget, the millions of your brothers and sisters whose lives are destroyed by the very same experiences you hide and cover up in your own past.

    2. Be a parasite on the taxpayers and go on welfare ‘disability’.

    3. Start your own business.

    Stark choices. Indeed.

    This is the way it is.

    Oh I forgot 4.

    Be a minimally paid bought and paid for by the state professional mental patient working in the public mental health system as a so called ‘peer’. Be prepared to not have any freedom of speech, and be prepared to be fired the minute you doubt biological psychiatry’s creation story. Be prepared to stand by while your overseers continue the status quo and use you as a co-opted excuse to claim they are giving the labeled people a say in a system of fraud, quackery and human rights violations that you’ll be able to do nothing about, because your very livelihood depends on your day job at the state hospital. Rub shoulders and share a kitchen with violent, human rights abusing psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses, and pretend they don’t look at you like you’re a lesser biological being behind your back.

    Pretend they don’t secretly pity you and hope their kids don’t ‘get the biological disease you have’.

  • I say to these ‘researchers’, pack up your ridiculous fourteen thousand times removed pseudoscientific endeavor to understand MY experience, and invite me as a human being to dinner. But these are the same people who pass by on their way to their ivory towers, homeless, labeled, psychiatrized people, beggars, without eye contact…. and they will NEVER be the ones to ‘explain’ or ‘help’ my experience. Because they see me as a circus animal, a petri dish, disembodied human being, and the search for the ‘evidence’ to prove their prejudices right continues, and the endless tap of either taxypayer or drug company dollars flows, for they are the ones who clink champagne glasses around the dinner party table and tell those in their class, that ‘they work in finding a cure’ for my experiences, and much respect and ego gratification is had, and never in their lives will they help a single person labeled ‘schizophrenic’, because they are tilting at windmills in the vile biological determinist humanity destroying world of ‘psychiatric research’.

    I am glad I don’t have such a ‘researcher’ in my family. I wouldn’t have an ounce of respect for their life choices.

  • I fully agree with you Duane Sherry.

    ‘screeners’, are nothing but quack questionnaires, dressed up in the false pseudomedical language of ‘screening’ as if to hitch a wagon to real medicine like ‘prostate screening’ or some such.

    Screeners are quackery, so is naturopathy. The last thing anyone in jeopardy of being harmed by psychiatry needs, is another parasitic quack profession preying on them, gaining their trust, tricking them into developing a dependency on their dubious ‘credentials’.

    It really is tragic and sad to hear the word ‘physician’ and ‘patient’ in relation to this quackery.

    I think wikipedia sums naturopathy up best when it says

    “Non-scientific health care practitioners, including naturopaths, use unscientific methods and deception on a public who, lacking in-depth health care knowledge, must rely upon the assurance of providers.”

  • “I have no trouble believing that chemical imbalances and brain malfunctions occurred during my mental illness but psychoneuroimunological studies that prove how the emotional system is an interdependent partner with all other body systems and provide evidence that thought can and does become chemistry, validate my belief that in my case, at least, the chemical imbalances resulted from my diseased emotions rather than the other way around.”

    I live on a planet where no other human beings can offer the brain chemical measurement service, nor do any of these human beings know what a properly ‘measured’ brain chemical deal would look like, so I don’t make any claims about my brain chemistry.

    Nor do claim an experience or crisis is an ‘illness’, there is nothing ‘medical’ here, apart from the ‘stories’ we are told, and the roles the fake doctors play in the pseudomedical theater that is psychiatry.

  • “The third is it is a dumbed down explanation of the complexity of mental experiences, which obviously have some biological basis, but this is not the same as ’cause’, nor it it in the only level of explanation.”

    Give us the non-dumbed down biological explanation of our experiences Dr. Datta, pray tell. I’m all ears.

    “Some people do benefit from taking medications, and I do prescribe medication, because they can provide some symptomatic relief, help with sleep, agitation etc. But let’s not pretend they correct some sort of defect inherent in the brain.”

    You prescribe drugs because adults are not allowed to buy their own drugs, you call them ‘medications’ because you believe there is something ‘medical’ about this activity, and you label people’s experiences ‘symptoms’ because you again, believe there is something medical about this activity.

    I repeat, as you didn’t answer my question below, are you going to drug my brain if a judge orders you to against my will?

    And is prescribing for ‘agitation’ a code phrase for tranquilizing people you think are a problem?

  • Ideally he wouldn’t have to get a permission slip called a prescription from the government, and he could buy whatever drug he wanted. He’s not a child is he?

  • The brain damage and delerium from late stage mercury poisoning, are completely different to the context rich, stress related states of overwhelm and confusion that Healy labels ‘psychoses’ in his last paragraph.

    A nice history lesson for sure, but simply making a blanket, unsupported statement at the end, that OUR experiences are nothing but brain aberrations brought on by poisonous drugs, diminishes my humanity, and the humanity of all.

    You heard it first from Healy here everybody, your experiences, your distress, are no more meaningful than a brain damaged hat maker from the 18th century… and you people wonder why I find him to be repellant.

  • You might think it is a paradox that I don’t like these two things, I don’t agree.

    1. I don’t like simplistic, faith based explanations of behavior as ‘brain diseases’ no one’s ever been able to demonstrate exist.

    2. I don’t like simplistic, faith based explanations of behavior as ‘drug effects’ no one’s ever been able to demonstrate via anything other than vague self reports and faith based claims about magical drugs that rob people of free will.

    I also don’t like the intellectual dishonesty of using two types of explanations for the behaviors that are approved of, and ones that are disapproved of.

    In the drug blaming world of Healy fans, people choose a menu item at dinner because they want to, but they kill themselves not because they want to, but because ‘drugs made them do it’.

    I find the biological claims of general ‘mental illness’ infantile, as do I find the biological drug blaming claims of drug blamers infantile.

    There is no paradox. Drug blaming is as mindless as brain blaming. When neither the drug blamers nor the brain blamers can prove their claims, their creation stories for the behaviors they seek to ‘explain’.

  • “My point is that psychiatrists of the current generation do not learn that mental disorders are caused by chemical imbalances. ”

    Psychiatrists of the current generation certainly ARE told that these are brain diseases, whether it is called a ‘chemical imbalance’ is beside the point.

    The point is you are trained to believe there is ‘something’ diseased about the brains of people you label and drug.

  • “This however is not relevant to the current discussion, as the notion of ‘chemical imbalances’ is not typically held up as a reason for involuntary treatment. It is certainly not one that would be approved by any court I know of.”

    I would argue even if you say psychiatry’s brain based theories are not held up as a reason for forced drugging, people’s brains are being forcibly drugged with ‘treatments’ based on those theories, so it is relevant.

    What ‘reasons’ do you believe justify forcibly altering peoples’ brains? Or are you against forced drugging?

    You say you didn’t even know how to section a person in the UK? I would wonder how it is you satisfied the requirements of your training if you were not taught how to do this. I know for a fact it is something every graduating psychiatrist is trained how to do in the UK.

    Do you ever prescribe psychiatric drugs to people?

    How do you justify prescribing drugs that alter the brains of people when you cannot prove their brain is diseased?

  • Sinead.

    Show me the chimpanzees in the lab the kill themselves on prozac.

    I don’t take the same leaps of faith you take, so we will have to agree to disagree.

    A few subjective reports, and a couple of books by a psychiatrist who offers nothing but statistics, has not proven there is a drug that makes people murderers or self murderers.

    Throw the vague term ‘akasthisia’ at me all you like.

    I don’t agree that people that stand up and make excuses in court for money, are above reproach.

    No further interaction on the topic of Healy from me will be entered into.

    You’re a fan of his, I’m not. Leave it at that.

    You know, I blame SSRIs for making me buy a blue car instead of a red one, too.

  • This would all be very concerning if a real medical profession was being corrupted by drug company influence.

    Thankfully, he’s only talking about the quackery known as ‘psychiatry’, and when a corrupt, worthless and debased fake medical specialty gets ‘corrupted’ it is just corruption to the power of ten.

    What remains to be explained is what ‘key opinion leader’ takes promising young medical students who COULD become brain surgeons, and instead convinces them to specialize as brain poisoners and life destroyers, in ‘psychiatry’.

    It is pieces like these, which seem to say oh if only the pharma KOLs could be knocked out psychiatry would be a real science, that are ridiculous.

  • Oh really!

    Can you show me a rape, suicide, or murder case, where the defendant was on SSRIs, that drug blaming psychiatrist ‘critics’ would not accept money to be an expert witness in the case?

    It is open slather with these people.

    You throw reductio ad absurdum at me, but I throw back at you the FACT, that there are an endless army of grieving parents ready to latch onto Healy’s views and blame drugs for the kid’s suicide, SIMPLY because that is the most comforting explanation for them, NO ONE is prepared to detail to me how a chemical compound drives someone to become a killer or self-killer.

    Believe me, if there was such a compound, the army would be using it.

  • “Why does the survivor community have more meaningful knowledge than the so-called professionals? Perhaps because our need became more urgent, in the struggle for survival, while others can afford to remain, comfortably numb?”

    It’s a matter of lives depending on it, versus mere livelihoods depending on it.

  • Ken, I have nothing positive to say about NAMI. Young people who are sucked into the NAMI corner of the web are all but doomed. Thank the universe for alternative voices that some of these young people will be able to save their own lives.

    But I have read your blog, and your story, and I can only encourage you to keep along the increasingly impressive path you’ve been on in the last couple of years. Well done Ken.

  • Wasn’t saying rubbish in response to you Sinead. If you look closely it is not even a reply to your post, it is a stand alone post all on its own, not in a thread tied to your comment.

    You *also* might *want* to *think* about how distracting all those bizar*re asteri*sks you place in the m*iddle of your sentences are. They are very distracting**

  • Not to Dr. Datta.

    Psychopathology of American Life.

    The concept of psychopathology is a false one.

    There can be no pathology of human thoughts and behavior, only quack doctors sitting back in smug judgment labeling a frowned upon feeling or behavior as ‘medical’ in nature. It is a social ritual hundreds of years old, reflects no real biological pathology that you or anyone else can demonstrate, and forms the basis for your entire career in psychiatry.

    Do you really think pathologizing people’s psyches is a legitimate scientific endeavor?

  • Melancholia is just another quack label and false medicalization of despair. Dredging it up from the dustbin of psychiatric label history doesn’t legitimize it. The medicalization of despair never had any legitimacy.

    Labeling people ‘melancholic’ and alleging they have no human agency, is just another leap of faith. A person labeled melancholic still runs from the room to outside during an earthquake.

    They still go to the toilet when nature calls rather than soil themselves where they stand. Even killing yourself is an act of agency.

    There is human agency there. To claim otherwise is a claim I reject.

  • Of course it seemingly makes sense to people. Blaming every frowned upon human choice on a drug ‘side effect’ is a Russian doll that can be made to sound plausible on the internet, just like a horoscope.

    Just as blaming every frowned upon human behavior on a fake brain disease can be made to sound plausible.

    With so many people, it’s either a strong belief in a brain disease causing a bad decision to be made, or a drug causing a bad decision to be made, both believers simply believe this because it sounds plausible. Neither believer can detail just exactly how a non demonstrated brain disease, or a drug, hijacked somebody’s free will. We are expected to just take the leap of faith that they have taken.

  • It all depends on whether you think every choice an individual makes while on a drug is a drug caused event.

    Or just the choices you disagree with, like the choice to hang oneself.

    If I was on a drug, would typing this comment be considered a drug caused event?

    What if I was typing this comment WHILE tying a noose on the rafter above my computer and standing on a stool?

    What if I chose to sing a song while doing so, would the comment typing, and the song, not be labeled an ‘adverse event’, but the kicking of the stool and hanging myself be labeled an ‘adverse event’?

    No one on this planet should be standing up and saying a drug caused any human action more complicated than a seizure, when they do, they embarrass themselves and look ridiculous.

  • Psychiatry, every time it enters a courtroom, makes a mockery of itself. Which isn’t hard to do. Breivik is about as brain diseased as the millions of other people who’ve been called names by a quack psychiatrist, that is to say, not brain diseased at all.

  • It nearly reduces me to tears. How dare these sickening brain rapists rape 100 people’s brains to prevent just 1 person ‘doing something’.

    How dare these people violate so many innocent people. How dare they! They need to be tried and imprisoned for crimes against humanity.

  • “In Scotland the community psychiatric nurse provides face to face support in the community, building a relationship with the person they support.”

    That sounds like a brochure.

    I have had such people forced on me by my government, ‘vistiting’ me against my will in my home, claiming they are ‘supporting’ me, I saw right through them.

    Leaving people alone, is ALWAYS a choice other people have when it comes to whether or not to force someone into psychiatry.

    I understand that you believe, or appear to believe from what you’ve written here, that psychiatric nurses are real nurses, that psychiatric drugs are real ‘medication’, I don’t believe in the validity of these things. Therefore I abhor the thought of ever again being forced to allow some minimally educated social worker type from the government into my home.

    This post is about advance directives.

    I want a strong, legally binding advance directive to protect me from having ANY contact with government psychiatry related personnel. There is no service I want from the government in relation to the ridiculous concept of ‘mental health’.

    I want protection from the government. Rights, iron clad rights, and protection.

    I understand you may feel you want some kind of ‘service’ provided by a collective government or something. That’s your prerogative, I just want the right to say no and to be able to stay as far away from government interference in my life as possible.

    If I commit a crime I’ll go to prison. If I haven’t committed a crime, what I do and believe is none of the government’s business.

  • If psychiatrists are not forced by law to abide by the ‘statement’, I see little value in drafting one.

    I believe you could tattoo it to your skin, and psychiatry would still strip you naked and forcibly inject you.

    It terrifies me to think anybody is working alongside a psychiatrist, and one of their goons, a ‘psychiatric nurse’, to draft this ‘statement’. It sounds like asking the fox to help you draw up design plans for the hen-house.

    “Anything that helps a person to be heard and to have control when having to enter the psychiatric system is useful. ”

    First I dispute there is ever a ‘have to’ when it comes to degrading a human being by forcing them into psychiatry. If they are being forced into a ‘system’, they by definition are not ‘being heard’.

    I don’t want any word that I’ve ever spoken to be heard, so much as I want the word ‘no’ to be heard. I know I could tattoo no on my forehead, and carry a ‘statement’ around saying no, and without the protection of the law, I would still be subjected to my worst nightmares.

    If a ‘statement’ contains hundreds or thousands of pretty words and platitudes, yet we are not allowed to put one simple word ‘no’ in there and have it listened to, it is an affront to human dignity.

    I highly doubt that anyone in Scotland is putting ‘no psychiatric drugs or detention’ on their ‘advance statement’ and having that wish respected.

    We need legally binding protection of our wills and directives. Iron clad legally binding protection that can’t be altered or pushed aside in any way by anybody.

  • Yeah right because ‘gathering credible, detailed adverse events reports’, is surely something that should be done anonymously online, as easy as leaving this comment was. Good luck with that accuracy.

    And I thought with drug an adverse event was a bodily reaction to the drug, not a magical co-opting of free will leading to a human decision that nobody is a fan of, say, a well planned successful suicide.

    You’ve gotta love this, he covered all his bases.

    “If you stopped the dose, did the problem clear?”

    “If you restarted the drug or increased the dose, did the problem reappear or get worse?”

    So if you plan a suicide on the drug, or off the drug, the drug is to blame.

    This guy gets paid to stand up in court and blame drugs for complex human choices. I didn’t know there was a molecule in a drug that could destroy human free will. Did you? News to me.

    This guy gets worse every time I read one of his quack articles. He’s got a hobby horse and a lucrative one at that.

  • NAMI is a disgrace to advocacy.

    Yeah, fine. New Hampshire NAMI might have some bright sides, as the author seems to suggest, but a “NAMI Mommie” is a mommie I’m glad I don’t have. Any mother that feels the need to lobby the state to take away their childrens’ human rights is an obscene human being.

  • The usual endless mantra from psychiatrists who are slightly critical of the profession, who steadfastly believe that when they throw around the word ‘psychotic’ they are referring to an objective and legitimately ‘medical’ ‘thing’, and then gives us some criticism of ‘over’ medicalizing sadness in others whom they deem not to be so ‘objectively’ deserving of medicalization.

    All the while reminding us that the set of keys and violently injected syringes they wielded in the psych ward were there to lock up and forcibly drug the ‘legitimately’ medicalized people. People denied so much as a court hearing we need to remember, since he comes from Britain where those imprisoned and forcibly drugged and labeled by British psychiatrists are all denied their day in court.

    The author is also a big government public healthist. In a recent blog, he absurdly claims that the smoking bans, salt bans, and sugar drink bans of the public health movement, are in fact ‘safeguarding our freedom’.

    It’s also worth pointing out he wrote a completely insightless piece about ‘brief hospitalisations’ being the reason more people kill themselves. He makes absolutely no mention of the brutality and coercion that so decimates peoples’ lives during their time detained in forced psychiatry being a reason people kill themselves in the first week of release.

    Another one he wrote on why choice in healthcare is a BAD thing…

    http://canardtheduck.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/tyranny-of-choice-or-why-markets-do-not.html

    A Harvard ‘public health’ graduate, the author has said this about ‘public health’:

    “I had no illusions about the status about public health when I chose this path. I am sure my colleagues knew this too. My contention is that the marginalization of public health, by society, and by Harvard itself, is symptomatic of a world that does not appreciate what really matters. For public health offers nothing less than the possibility of freedom. Freedom not simply from infirmity or disease, not only from suffering and distress, but freedom from poverty, inequality, and social exclusion, freedom from intolerance, greed, and hate. Public Health provides the possibility of looking beyond the inevitability of death and focus on the experience of life. ”

    He seems to believe banning sodas and forcing smokers out into the cold night, is the very definition of liberty itself. He seems to believe the uproar of over Mayor Bloomberg’s soda banning policy the other week was just a misguided response from people who don’t understand that ‘public health offers nothing less than the possibility of freedom.”

    Biological psychiatry and public health, two specialties with a historical and contemporary contempt for individual liberty.

    All blog quotes can be found at his blog. MIA only allows the posting of one html link.

  • It’s a nice sentiment, and the UN moral authority thing that Tina has worked to bring about it useful, but it still is set to remain the case for the rest of my life and my grandchildrens lives even, that there will be nowhere to run, if you are targeted for ‘help’ (read destruction) by the Church of Psychiatry and its fanatics.

    I agree with some of the other comments though, good to see Tina here at MIA.com

  • Sounds like nothing but community commitment, from the state that champions it the most with Kendra’s Law. More endless waste of taxpayer millions for the psychiatry industrial complex of BS community clowns filling distressed peoples’ heads with lies.

  • If an advance directive is not legally binding it is next to worthless. It’s not even worth using the words ‘advance directive’, it becomes just a ‘please maybe hopefully do this letter’ addressed meekly to your captors, who, as you admit, will likely not be in the mood to read more than one page.

    I would advise against using the term ‘advance directive’ in a non legally binding context. It may be confused with the binding directives like DNRs, that actually represent people’s wishes and that doctors are actually bound by law to respect.

    In the entire world, I know of only Germany as offering anything approaching an advance directive that would be listened to by the powers that be. And even in the German case, data are scarce on how many of them are being respected by coercive psychiatry there, and the German AD laws are very new only a couple of years old.

  • “This experienced has led me to conclude that it is not helpful to people to focus on brain abnormalities but to talk about the brain in distress”

    I was a PERSON in distress. Not a ‘brain’. And nobody in psychiatry is in a position to be speaking matter-of-factly about ‘brain abnormalities’, if you were, we’d all be going to neurologists and the pathetic label bible the DSM would be pulped.

  • People willing to drug their brains when no physician has ever even looked at their biology and proven it disordered or diseased, are not interested in real science.

    It’s ‘sciency’ enough for them that a dude in a white coat told them they were feeling sad because they had a brain disease and bad genes while he remained seated behind a desk and didn’t even come near their body to test or measure anything.

    To the extent that they ‘work’, it is never just the drugs ‘working’, it is the twin pillars of fraud and the power of suggestion ‘working’ on these people.

    1) I believe I have a brain disease that makes me sad.

    2) I pop a pill that I believe ‘fixes’ my broken brain function.

    3) The combined ritual of believing I am a helpless and powerless passive victim of an active disease process, and my bottomless trust in the credentialed wizards of neurochemistry in the white coats that never even looked inside my biology, allow some believers to magically start feeling less sad after a while engaged in the cleansing ritual of swallowing the church of psychiatry’s daily eucharist wafers.

    But simply swallowing the eucharist wafers is not enough by itself, first one has to swallow the creation story of one’s own despair. It all depends on how hard to swallow you find these ‘revelations’.

    The large scale study back and forth on SSRIs is like a debate on whether the glucose or carbohydrate action on the biology in real Catholic communion eucharist wafers is responsible for the dose response of Catholicism in feelings of connected to the body of Christ.

    Psychiatric transubstantiation, whether anecdotal or writ large in large scale studies, is never going to tell us why so many millions of people are so able to put their reason aside and simply take it for granted that a doctor who has never once looked inside their biology, can ethically have his or her patients leave their office with the received belief that their sadness and despair in life is a brain disease.

  • “to this large scale rape of hundreds of thousands of living people’s brains.”

    Correction: that’s wrong. Millions of brains it should be.

    Worldwide 7 billion people, 3-5 billion adults, 3,000 million, 1% approximately have experienced forced psychiatry, therefore somewhere in the low tens of millions worldwide, between 8 and 25 million living adults, and many more million long since dead, have experienced forced psychiatry at some point in their lives.

    Trouble is, the other 6,988 million people don’t give a (censored).

  • You can’t stop this community forced drugging law. It will happen.

    The only way it will stop is when broader society confronts the horror happening in all states and all countries in relation to this large scale rape of hundreds of thousands of living people’s brains.

    Many more will have to suffer and die before it becomes accepted widely that this is abhorrent and unmitigated evil.

    A law that gives people no place to run to in Ohio, as sickening and violent as this law is, is only a small cog in the machinery of forced psychiatry as an accepted concept worldwide.

    When the majority have never had their brain raped, don’t expect to find majority sympathy for the plight of those who have, will and are having having their brain raped.

    This is the sad reality, but trust me, it is the reality.

    Well over 90% of people in the world are in favor of laws instituting the wide scale rape of the brains of anybody labeled ‘mentally ill’.

    This is not an issue comparable to being gay in the 1950s, it’s an issue comparable to being a heretic in the 1400s. There will be nowhere to run to, until long after we all die, if ever.

    If you are targeted for forced drugging in the community, your only escape is to go completely off grid. Many lives will be destroyed by this Ohio law, and the people in favor of it are all powerful, and not amenable to any considerations of the lives destroyed.

    Worldwide, supporters of freedom have been asleep at the wheel on forced psychiatry for generations. The battle is now hundreds of years away from being won.