Showing 100 of 301 comments.
Thank you very much for the article.
The length of withdrawal depends on the degree of addiction, and the degree of addiction in turn depends on the length of exposure, among other things.
This is why I think expressing the length of withdrawal as an absolute value doesn’t make a lot of sense, and it would be better to express it as a percentage of the length of exposure.
For example, a person exposed for 6 months to a neuroleptic will probably not need 9 months to wean, while for a person exposed for 10 years, 9 months will probably not be enough, let alone multiple drug abuse.
To say that a person probably needs 10% to 20% of the exposure time to wean may make more sense, although other factors come into play as well.
In addition, one should not overlook personal and relational subjective factors, and even political factors.
States that promote legal drug addiction for social regulation (and all states do) will make withdrawal more difficult.
I think the length of withdrawal should be biologically “reasonable”, but political intervention is needed.
> In the French procedure, the sleep is the treatment.
LOL. It made me laugh to read this. We realize how stupid the procedure is. It’s like an anesthesiologist saying that anesthesia is the treatment, and if 2 hours of general anesthesia isn’t enough, he will try it for 15 days.
However, don’t trust the presentation of Doctissimo. What this article proves is that sleep therapy exists, not how or why it is used. Since the practice is legal in France, it can be used in non-voluntary care, and nothing prevents it from being combined with other treatments, including electroshock.
It is very difficult to know how much and how sleep therapy is used in France, in voluntary care or without consent, alone or in combination with other treatments, because there are no statistics. However, it is likely that the practice is relatively rare in France, because otherwise I would have found other testimonies. In any case, French psychiatrists have a free hand to combine sleep therapy with other treatments, including care without consent, simply because it is legal.
Sleep therapy is still practiced in France.
Are you sure it is not practiced in Australia or the United States?
You can find on this forum the messages of a certain Étienne who testifies that his sister-in-law was hospitalized for a sleep cure in 2011, described as follows:
Sleep: 20 hours a day
for: 15 days
Many French pro-psychiatric websites describe the sleep cure in very favorable terms, specifying that it is practiced in psychiatric hospitals.
In the 90s, a doctor was given a one-year suspended prison sentence after killing his patient with a sleep cure. Nevertheless, the court does not question the practice of the sleep cure in itself, but only the conditions in which it was carried out (drug addict patient, at home, no medical supervision).
Thank you for the review.
In our time, this kind of research is unethical: we have known for a long time that neuroleptics damage the brain, and new “research” on this subject only harms more people, who are treated like animals.
Research has already been done, neuroleptics must be banned now, without exposing more humans in studies whose results are known in advance.
Thanks for the report.
There is no link…
Fanon was a fanatic of insulin comas and electroshocks. But let Fanon speak for himself, since here, the editorial staff have lost any critical thinking to the point of extol one of the criminals we are fighting.
“Second step. During a narco-analysis, we push the shot until deep sleep, we change the patient’s environment, and we transfer her to another district, where she must be submitted, without any new contact with the old psychotherapist, to the Bini cure [electroshocks]. Reaching the confusing stage as quickly as possible, we replace the “nursing home” environment and the individual room, with the very “hospital” “set” for several patients. Practically, if she has some clearings of conscience during these first days, she can only note the vague concept of “disease”, and that very reassuring of “attentive care”.
Third step. Once the confused amnesic stage has been obtained, the patient begins to undergo insulin therapy [insulin comas] the aim of which is to place her, at the beginning of her awakening, in the very primitive situation of the mother-child intercourses: food in the mouth, cleanliness care, first words. […]
Gradually, the corrections and the awareness of the situation become total. “I’m sorry, I was very sick, the other day, I spoke to you as if you were Miss X., twenty years ago…, when my brother was born… we didn’t need him. Now I don’t have to have the same ideas. It was a conversation I had with her. We spoiled him so bad he was raised badly… I’m confused about it. I was told that I was sick, but I didn’t believe it… It’s a great place here, with you… If one day I relapse – there has heredity with us – I would not hesitate a moment to come back… “
She talks and cares about concrete problems in her community, especially with our only sister-nurse…, sometimes with us…; the behaviour becomes completely normal, and there is no sign of deterioration. She re-enters the community and quickly adapts to it. The hospitalization with us lasted a total of three months. During the five days of annihilation, she had seventeen electroshocks. She underwent forty insulin therapy sessions, forty days of directed institutional therapy.”
Sur quelques cas traités par la méthode de Bini
I solemnly protest against the pro-psychiatric deviation of Mad in America, which reaches new heights where a supporter of electroshock, insulin comas and patient annihilation can be promoted as “radical” and “progressive” on Mad in America.
sylvain.rousselot.pro (at) gmail.com
I note that I have indeed misinterpreted your words and that you are indeed in favor of the use of psychiatric drugs.
You simply object to the “abuse” of psychotropic substances and the coercive use of these drugs.
That’s why we have nothing in common, and I totally reject Marcello Maviglia’s call to work together.
On the contrary, in my comment, which has been the subject of major cuts in order to be published, I called to exclude from Mad in America those favorable to psychiatric drugs, that is to say, not to allow them to publish here.
By way of analysis, I believe there are two irreconcilable categories of readers and editors here on Mad in America.
First we have the “carers”, the intellectuals, the journalists, who studied at the university and who share a common “habitus” between themselves and with the psychiatrists, that is to say, to simplify, the same social class. These are supporters of “critical” psychiatry, they want to reform psychiatry to save it, make it better and develop it according to their views. They do not hesitate to ask for more budgets for psychiatry and to promote illegal drugs, which they are often very fond of.
And then we have the real victims of psychiatry, those who were broken by the machine, those who experienced REAL mournings and REAL mutilations. Those who lost their freedoms, those who saw their loved ones wiped out by treatment that made them weak and helpless – or DEAD. Those who saw the criminality of psychiatrists, through their agreement with the family to camouflage rapes and incest, for the production of false certificates to lock up, for the systematic violation of professional secrecy and private life and all other human rights.
For these, no compromise, no agreement is possible and psychiatry must be exterminated to the root, so that not even a fossil remains for centuries to come.
This is why you will understand that the reformists, with their legal and illegal drugs, their intentions of better “caring” us, their complacency with their colleagues, their pacifism, their moderation and their common work with psychiatrists, all these people are for us like a splinter in the foot.
I hope that my message will not be censored, and that it will not be subject to any cut, having expressed in the clearest way possible the position of a certain number of people who read, comment or publish here.
Maybe someday I will write a blog about the necessary prohibition of psychotropic drugs, except anesthesia and rigorously controlled, reasonable duration weaning (because a weaning which lasts more than 2 years is a fake weaning).
Prohibition is necessary not only for medical reasons, but also for political reasons.
The prohibition of psychotropic drugs and psychiatry in general, whether exercised by a psychiatrist or anyone else, will allow us to separate allies and enemies on this point, and allow us to crush members of the psychiatric industry/institution.
This is why I say that prohibition is necessary on several levels.
Do you know this quote from John Ehrlichman?
“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
— Dan Baum, Legalize It All: How to win the war on drugs, Harper’s Magazine (April 2016)
If one day we take the power, we will use the same kind of methods, but in an open way, to crush psychiatrists (and not Blacks or anti-war activists). The little cannabis users, we don’t care.
We want prohibition, for get hold of the psychiatrists. Prohibition (among other measures) will allow us to bring down an entire sector of the old state repressive apparatus and develop our own repressive apparatus. Only, our repressive apparatus will be directed against a whole other section of the society.
In her articles, Laura Guerra spoke out clearly against drug use (not only against drug “abuse”): she translated a book by P. Breggin and severely warned her readers against drugs.
On the contrary, according to the biography of Dan Monticelli, Dan Monticelli and Marcello Maviglia have together written a book entitled: “New Paths to Recovery: Behavioral, Physical and Spiritual Potentials for Cannabis”.
Since Marcello Maviglia is a psychiatrist, I would like to ask him the question: [moderation]? Or put another way: does he prescribe psychotropic drugs?
Since Marcello Maviglia is asking for feedback on his project, here is mine.
I believe [moderation] and drug promoters should be removed from the “Mad” network.
[Published after autor and moderation’s agreement.]
Early genius is, obviously, non-genetic. See the experience of the Polgár sisters. Common factors include an early start and hard work. Behind all precocious genius, there is a pedagogue. If early genius were genetic, it would be passed from parent to child, and we would have successive generations of geniuses that would reproduce predictably. But this is not the case.
What about animal experimentation? Indeed, I doubt that the mice raise their twins MZ and DZ differently. The use of laboratory mice would allow to pass them double-blind tests, and to test the mice in very large numbers and at low cost.
Given that the breeding and testing environment is extremely similar and that the mice have no culture but only instinctive behavior, such a well-controlled and double-blind experiment would give us serious clues about plausibility of the genetic hypothesis.
My opinion is that there will be no statistically significant difference in behavior depending on whether the twin pairs are MZ or DZ.
Critical psychiatrists can never help but make a concession to mainstream psychiatry: “Pills may be helpful to modulate extreme distress”, which illustrates that they are from the same corporation and have the same function.
All that distinguishes a critical psychiatrist from a conventional psychiatrist is the feeling of guilt, but a critical psychiatrist will never take it upon himself to take revolutionary action: on the contrary, they always admit, according to their program, that narcotics can be useful “in some cases” and put us to sleep with promises of reform that will never come.
Who can believe a man who works in a mental hospital? He will fill out the same psychiatric records, engage in the same drug trafficking and offer absolution to anyone who seeks in him the root cause of his misfortunes.
After the drug trade, the intimate confession? We know that the Mafia has always been very attached to the Catholic Church. Likewise, psychiatrists are staunch defenders of psychotherapy, which is somehow their excuse and their priesthood for all the crimes they have committed.
Corrupt priests might as well say that the Mafia can redeem itself. Narcotics, kidnappings, blackmail, corruption, extortion and exploitation: all this can be corrected as soon as you surrender your soul to God. But don’t stop the Mafia! Amen.
It is a selection bias.
Suppose 1000 people are going through a psychotic crisis in families refusing psychiatric treatment.
Suppose, 5 years later, 90% have recovered, and 10% have worsened.
In desperation, the families of these 10% finally hospitalize them.
In this case, we observe that 100% of people hospitalized have worsened in the last 5 years. Psychiatrists might observe that, in this group of chronic psychotics, the recovery rate is only 5%. But it is a selection bias: the original sample of this group was 1,000 people, and 90% of this group have recovered and will never go to psychiatry. They are therefore invisible.
Now suppose 100 people are going through a psychotic crisis, but this time, in families following the recommendations of psychiatrists, and immediately hospitalizing their loved one.
Suppose that with medication, 5 years later, 30% of people recover and 70% become chronic psychotics.
Thus, according to psychiatric observations:
30% of psychotics treated immediately recover, 40% become chronic;
5% of psychotics treated 5 years later recover, 95% remain chronic.
But according to the actual data:
90% of psychotics never treated recover, 10% become chronic;
30% of psychotics treated immediately recover, 70% become chronic.
Association ≠ causality.
Sometimes a negative association can reveal positive causation.
Removed for moderation.
The psychedelics of indigenous societies have a social function, just like the psychotropics of capitalist society: to prevent society from evolving. Primitive societies are absolutely incredible in their concervatism: they can remain similar to themselves for tens of thousands of years.
The ritual consumption of narcotics to stupefy the people and thus prevent any human progress is thus an instrument of choice to keep society in its current state. No new invention, no discovery is then possible.
It is only in exceptional circumstances (war, famine, migration …) that the tribe is forced to moderate its consumption of narcotics, and possibly to evolve, but it takes an extremely long time.
Thus, the opposition of indigenous “spiritual” society to “materialist” capitalist society is irrelevant, because in both cases the consumption of narcotics has a surprisingly similar social function: to prevent society from evolving. And more precisely in capitalist society: preventing the revolution.
This video explains it absolutely very well, taking for example the monopoly of the production and distribution of alcohol in Tsarist Russia.
What is true for the monople of alcohol is just as true for the “medical” monopoly of massively consumed psychiatric drugs in contemporary capitalist society.
PROTOCOLIZE RESEARCH REVIEW
Thank you for your review of this study.
You and other writers of Mad In America have gained crucial experience in examining research, consisting in tests and analysis criteria.
Isn’t it time to compile all these criteria in a protocol, allowing to carry out a systematic review of research according to predictable and rigorously defined criteria?
We always find the same criteria in your articles and those of other editors:
_ representative vs non-representative population
_ placebo study vs withdrawal study
_ naive population vs non-naive population
_ Confounding factors (including medication)
_ short term vs long term
_ protection of the safety (in particular due to withdrawal)
There is not much missing to compile all these criteria in a systematic analysis protocol.
I would like different Mad In America editors to come together to establish such a protocol, which would guide the editors in their analysis of studies.
It makes it possible to assess the quality of studies in a stricter, more in-depth and better defined manner.
Such a protocol could eventually become a recognized standard for evaluating scientific research.
> In June 2018, he pleaded guilty to the theft of $87,000, after which a judge sentenced Neumeister — a classically trained pianist — to play piano for “an hour at least twice weekly for the next three years at group facilities in Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford, and Waterbury,” Connecticut, the Associated Press reported at the time.
This is a joke? To punish him, the judge asked him to do a leisure activity ?? !!!
It’s been 312 hours of leisure.
$87,000/312h = $280/h
And meanwhile, there are people who spend years in jail for pickpocketing.
The judges also, they will have to be punished for their class complacency.
“Those who […] were currently abusing substances […] were excluded from the study. […] Participants were assisted in tapering their current antidepressant medication and were allowed benzodiazepines only if needed.”
But antidepressants and benzodiazepines consumption IS substances abuse!
Since when is the consumption of antidepressants or benzodiazepines no longer a drug addiction? Because a psychiatrist said it was good for your health? Because the state says it’s legal?
Addiction to psychiatric drugs is almost always more serious than addiction to illegal drugs, because psychiatric drugs are practically free, while illegal drugs are relatively expensive. Thus there is an economic limit to the consumption of illegal drugs, while for legal drugs, the pockets of social security and insurance are wide open!
The severe consumption of psychiatric drugs, the concomitant withdrawal from antidepressants, and the “at will” consumption of benzodiazepines make the “results” of this pseudo-study completely random.
Besides, we don’t need “scientific” studies to find out if recreational drugs are … recreational. Obviously, certain drugs are “pleasant”, and they temporarily decrease the suffering of some. People are ready to risk prison, and even life, to consume them! Not only do these studies teach us nothing, but in addition their methods are fraudulent, dishonest and criminal: why not give good doses of heroin to depressed people? I am sure that such a study would give “promising” results according to the kind of analysis that Mad in America give us for hallucinogens.
Why this double standard? Why then a rigorous critical analysis for neuroleptics, and a disgusting complacency for hallucinogens? It is however the same kind of pseudo-science at the basis of their promotion!
There are reasons to believe that this selective complacency is not innocent. Just as scientists must declare their conflicts of interest, journalists who promote the use of illegal drugs should declare whether they are former users, occasional users or regular users.
For me, it is extremely doubtful that this sudden collapse of the critical mind, when hallucinogens comes to discussion, is pure chance.
When you talk about recreational drugs, honesty requires that you make a declaration of consumption or non-consumption, whether in the past or in the present.
Mad in America is totally ambivalent about drugs. There is no clear editorial line.
On the one hand “Mad in America” will require long-term studies on neuroleptics, antidepressants and anxyolitics, and conclude that they must be condemned. Some authors deny the existence of mental illness, and claim an exclusively social and / or cultural approach.
On the other, it prostrates itself against illegal recreational drugs, based on short-term clinical trials, the scientific value of which is extremely low. There is then no longer any serious scientific requirement, and “mental illness” again becomes like a real disease, which must be treated with medication.
I say that I have had enough of this ambivalence.
I say that the editorial line must be clearer, that Mad in America must abandon its anti-scientific spirit when it comes to illegal and recreational drugs.
There are effective treatments for acute pain.
But are there effective treatments for chronic pain? Are there randomized studies which prove that a treatment for chronic pain is effective beyond two years?
This is a silent character.
To my knowledge, “chronic pain” means to the doctor:
a) put the patient on opioids,
b) enrich himself in a pornographic way like a heroin dealer until the patient’s death.
If someone has the reference of a randomized study comparing an analgesic to a placebo or the absence of treatment, and doing a follow-up beyond two years, I am interested.
The object of study being chronic pain, studies whose follow-up is less than two years are not relevant.
Testing psychotherapy to cure “mental illness” is as meaningless as testing exorcism to cast out demons.
Exorcism and psychotherapy are cultural activities whose “effectiveness” depends on the social and personal congruence between the parties.
It is not surprising that psychotherapy is more effective in wealthy people, since psychotherapy was born in liberal circles.
The bursting of psychotherapeutic approaches attests to the diversity, complexity, syncretism and cosmopolitism of modern Western culture, unlike other older, more local and more homogeneous cultures.
Psychotherapy is neither medical nor paramedical, it is a purely cultural activity which testifies to the time and the place in which we live.
It is out of the question to reimburse psychotherapies, just as it is out of the question that the State or Social Security finance the Church; all this is only the corporatism of charlatans associated ready to submit to state control in order to enrich themselves.
Down with the Rasputins!
Schizophrenia is defined by a series of sets of behaviors, not even consistent with each other.
Not being a scientifically defined entity, but rather an extremely vague social category, it doesn’t even make sense to search for genetics under it.
Here are two real cases of people diagnosed with schizophrenia:
At the beginning of adolescence, a young girl begins to use recreational drugs massively, in the milieu of rave parties. A little later, she develops a severe psychosis. Her divorced father was himself an addict, addicted to hard drugs.
Psychiatric “diagnostic”: schizophrenia.
The girl continues to use recreational drugs, no measures are taken to change her social environment or to clarify the links between her father’s addiction and her own addiction. On the contrary, her psychiatrist is actively involved in getting her to test various drugs, including a psychostimulant which has triggered an extreme psychotic crisis.
At 14, a young girl is sexually touched by her stepfather. The family decides to keep the matter quiet, and recommends to the girl do the same. At 18, the girl begins to tell her story to everyone, and shows a rebellious and independent spirit. She leaves the family home with the intention of no longer living with her stepfather. Her mother calls her back, and, without explicitly forbidding her, makes her understand that she must not leave the family (double-bind). The girl begins to develop a sort of “uncertainty psychosis”, deciding to return home then immediately after leaving. This alternation of decisions becomes faster and faster until the girl becomes completely confused. She was quickly interned by her mother. Since then, she is regularly interned by her parents, as soon as she shows initiative, which triggers a psychosis.
“Treatment”: neuroleptics and successive hospitalizations, in order to “subdue” her (to make her accept the illness and the treatment, which she refuses).
Other family and environmental aspects: the sister was raped by the stepfather’s brother at the age of 5. She did not develop psychosis. Of course, there is no genetic link between the father-in-law and the uncle on the one hand, and the two sisters on the other. This young woman is “supported” by those around her, but like a “mental patient”; she is also treated as a “sacred person”, being mentioned that she is truly in contact with the world of the beyond (literally). Thus, her entourage justifies her “schizophrenia” by a contradictory mixture of genetics, mysticism and incest; the sordid reality of sexual touching is most often concealed and minimized in favor of psychiatric and mystical explanations. Her grandmother bluntly told her that incest was a “normal” phenomenon, and that it was important not to talk about it.
Two completely different cases, clearly non-genetic and treated in the same way by psychiatry. How can we even seriously consider that these two people could have a “common genetic profile” that would distinguish them and separate them from the rest of humanity? Genetics serve as a cover-up for an absolutely obvious, overwhelming social reality, which psychiatrists have the task of camouflaging for the benefit of family tranquility: the drug addiction of a father, the incest of a stepfather.
This is the real justification for the so-called “research” on the genetics of this absurd entity that is “schizophrenia”.
Currently, scientific research on nutrition is in absolute contradiction with official nutritional recommendations.
We don’t eat enough fat: the PURE study (Dehghan, 2017), bringing together more than 130,000 people over a median of 7.4 years, studying the mortality and morbidity rate according to the intake of macronutrients, finds the lowest mortality rate in the population quintiles consuming the most fats and the least carbohydrates.
Thus, all other things being equal (tobacco, physical activity, education, etc.):
People in the 1st quintile getting a median of 46.4% of their energy from carbohydrates have a death rate of 4.1 per thousand and per year,
People in the 5th quintile getting a median of 77.2% of their energy from carbohydrates have a death rate of 7.2 per thousand and per year,
People in the 1st quintile getting a median of 10.6% of their energy from lipids have a mortality rate of 6.7 per thousand and per year,
People in the 5th quintile getting a median of 35.3% of their energy from lipids have a mortality rate of 4.1 per thousand and per year,
For proteins, the optimal amount was around 16.9% (4th quintile), between 16.4% and 17.4%, although there may be an association between protein consumption and consumption of lipids or carbohydrates (fatty meats, dairy products; vegetables…).
The fact that the mortality rate is lowest in the 1st quintile of carbohydrate consumption and in the 5th quintile of lipids consumption suggests that an even lower consumption of carbohydrates and even higher consumption of lipids decreases mortality even more.
And indeed, the first graph in Figure 1 on page 7 shows an inverse relationship between lipid consumption and the mortality rate. The mortality rate is the lowest… at the end of the graph, when more than 45% of the total energy comes from lipids!
In addition, an increased consumption of saturated fatty acids or monounsaturated fatty acids does not increase the mortality rate, on the contrary. It’s just that a very high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids lowers the mortality rate even more. In other studies, it is trans fatty acids that have demonstrated their harmfulness (margarines…), not the saturated fatty acids!
On the contrary, beyond 55% of energy in the form of carbohydrates, the mortality rate increases in an accelerated way.
100ml of breast milk contains:
4.2g, 37.8cal (54%) fat
1.1g, 04.4cal (06%) protein
7.0g, 28.0cal (40%) carbohydrates
By natural selection, breast milk is probably close to optimal for the newborn.
It gives us an indication of the importance of lipids in human nutrition.
The optimal share of lipids in human food after weaning is certainly greater than or equal to 45%, probably around 54%, as in breast milk.
Proteins are of variable quality in human food after weaning: part of the protein is used for anabolism (cell construction) and the other for catabolism (energy): more protein is therefore needed to ensure anabolic needs, and pay attention to their quality. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why, all other things being equal, people consuming more animal proteins have a lower mortality rate; another reason being that a higher consumption of animal proteins is associated with a higher consumption of lipids (fatty fish, fatty meat…).
In general, the quality of macronutrients is important, and the way they are taken: for example, we know that fibers significantly reduce the harmfulness of fructose (whole fruits…), while pure sucrose, i.e. refined sugar, is very harmful and causes diabetes (Coca-Cola…).
Dehghan, M., Mente, A., Zhang, X., Swaminathan, S., Li, W., Mohan, V., …Mapanga, R. (2017). Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study. Lancet, 390(10107), 2050–2062. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32252-3
Spears should consider applying for Russian citizenship.
Gerard Depardieu did it well… and he got it.
Of course, she would lose all her fortune, but freedom is priceless… And then she could rebuild a small capital by working in Russia.
She should visit Russia when the Cold War heats up.
Ah, Russia, country of freedom, LOL.
The comparison with cocaine is wise.
The pharmaco-medical complex intends to expand the extremely lucrative market for recreational drugs, and to seize the market shares currently held by the Mafia.
The “scientific” method by which esketamine has been approved is applicable to any recreational drugs.
It is therefore not only the approval of esketamine that is at stake, but the groundswell aimed at widening the market for recreational drugs: opiates, benzodiazepines, veterinary sedatives, psycho-stimulants, ecstasy, LSD, cannabis, etc.
We can find other biases in this study.
Hawthorne effect: “is a type of reactivity in which individuals modify an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of being observed.”
Social desirability bias: “is a type of response bias that is the tendency of survey respondents to answer questions in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others.”
Classical conditioning: “refers to a learning procedure in which a biologically potent stimulus (e.g. alcool) is paired with a previously neutral stimulus (e.g. aversive social situation).”
At least some parts of the experience was designed to maximize the Hawthorne effect and the social desirability bias by classical conditioning.
“Baseline and post-manipulation (i.e. Day 1 and Day 10) cue reactivity was assessed via ‘liking’ and ‘urge to drink’ ratings of a set of beer (N = 7), wine (N = 3) orange juice (N = 4) and soft drink (N=2) cue images, as described previously12. The experimenter first opened a bottle of lager (Pilsner Urquell) in front of the participants and poured 150ml into a half-pint glass. This was placed on the table in front of the participants and they were told that they would drink this beer when instructed to by on-screen prompts, but that first they would rate a series of images for pleasantness(liking) and their effects on urge to drink(wanting) the beer in front of them. All ratings were made verbally on a scale of -5 (extremely unpleasant/ greatly reduces urge) to +5 (extremely pleasant/ greatly increases urge) and noted by the experimenter. Images were 400×400 pixels, presented centrally on a computer screen, in a random order, for 10 seconds each. Following completion of the rating, participants were asked to rate their current urge to drink the in vivo beer (anticipatory urgerating) and how much they Conducting the cue reactivity/alcohol reinforcement task on Day 1 and Day 10 both provided a metric of clinically-relevant changes in the hedonic and motivational effects of beer and maximised the expectancy of receiving beer during the Day 3 reactivation procedure, thus generating a prediction error (PE) when the drink was withheld on Day 3.
The alcohol MRM (RET) and Control (No RET) Memory Reactivation Procedures took place on Day 3 and used sub-sets of stimuli from the cue reactivity /alcohol reinforcement task. For MRM retrieval (RETgroups), these were four images of beer and for No RET+KET, these were four images of orange juice. All participants also rated two ‘soft drink’ images of cola and coffee. Participants in MRM retrieval conditions were told they would repeat the image rating and beer consumption task from Day 1. Again, a beer was opened and 150ml poured into a glass placed in front of participants. They then rated four of the beer cue images (designated ‘beer retrieval’ images) and the two soft drink images, along with their ‘urge to drink’ and anticipated enjoyment of the in vivo beer. The drinking prompt screens then began, but the final prompt read ‘Stop! Do not drink’.”
This is pure classical conditionning. Alcohol consumption is associated with an unpleasant social situation, frustration, and public exposure by the “experts”.
Although the experiment has resulted in “favorable” results, it is likely that it has above all (re)demonstrated the effectiveness of classical conditioning and social pressure in reducing alcohol consumption, or at least, the declaration of alcohol consumption.
Other biases can be found in the detailed description of the experiment.
For example, 27/30 of the placebo group and 60/60 of the ketamine group guessed which group they were in. Therefore, this experience is almost open label.
The link do not go to the right URL. The right URL is:
I really appreciate this scientific watch from madinamerica.com.
Unlike other media outlets, madinamerica.com reports on therapies that do not work.
This avoids the crushing and painful bias by which only favorable results are massively disseminated, giving the illusion of scientific progress without end and error.
The reality is that the march of science is riddled with massive, shameful and ridiculous errors; kept artificially alive by interest, authority and blindness.
90% of true scientific work is to get rid of these mistakes, not to create “new” scientific knowledge that is usually defective.
What is the difference between a 1939 German psychiatrist and a 2019 Canadian psychiatrist?
80 years apart.
It seems that the authors really believe that the GMH movement could have a beneficial effect if properly reoriented.
For example, anti-scientific communication operations that seek to promote or protect corporations or businesses, and that have the effect of degrading the health of the population, could be punished by real jail time.
Indeed, this kind of propaganda has the effect of maintaining or increasing the consumption of legal narcotics, and thus of causing harm to society, which can be measured in financial losses, in losses of years of life in good health and losses of human lifes.
These losses should be measured concretely and the people involved should be punished in the same way as other criminals.
“Emphasis on shared decision-making” aims to restore the reputation of psychiatry, and to integrate the institution to trade as a normal service, as are the services of hairstyles or lawyer.
This is total utopia, because the fundamental function of psychiatry is the repression of some form of deviance, while the trafficking of narcotics and psychotherapy are a subordinate function, whatever its economic size.
“Despite the clear benefits of involving young people in their own treatment” This is so obvious that the author is careful not to mention them. Would the benefit be that children can be subjected to drug addiction with their own agreement? Or that it is not necessary to use brutal force against them?
The “decision-making process” is a lie of war propaganda. War propaganda, like the myth of chemical imbalance, is a weapon of war, and makes deaths like any weapon. Proponents of war lies are criminals just like criminals who handle material weapons, like psychiatric narcotics.
“I did not … [know] … they just make decisions for me.”
This child is right. He is not stupid. the propagandists of the “shared decision-making” are liars, who deserve the same fate as other psychiatrists.
Down with the liars!
Thank you Peter. Your scientific watch is very useful.
Convictions are very rare.
I witnessed a psychiatrist who referred her client to a colleague with whom she had previously worked, in another hospital where she had previously worked, with a letter recommending the continuation of the restraint measure because of the voluntary cessation of patient care while in free care. Indeed, even when you are in free care and you stop the care freely, you may be reproached later if you return to care under duress, determining mandatory care potentially unlimited.
This psychiatrist has violated the following laws:
_ prohibition of comperage (article 23 of the CDM, Code of Medical Ethics),
_ violation of the free choice of the patient (article 6 of the CDM),
_ breach of professional secrecy (article 4 of the CDM),
_ refusal of transmission of the medical file (article 46 of the CDM).
Fortunately, the administration being what it is, they failed to well organize the transfer. They forgot to write the necessary certificates, so the client was legally free without anyone knowing.
When we started the release process, we realized that the client was already free. So we said bye-bye to the hospital, despite the helpless vociferations of the referral psychiatrist, and we had a good laugh in our sleeve.
In France, “compérage” is strictly forbidden by the law.
The “compérage” (from “compadre”, “partner”) consists, for a legal or physical person, to send his client to another legal or physical person, under a customers exchange agreement or other benefits, to limit competition, limit the choice of the client, and keep the customers captive of an oligopolistic network of companies or liberal professions.
When your psychologist sends you specifically and compulsorily to Chicago Lakeshore Hospital, which has an agreement with the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Medicine, she commits an act of compérage, which is a form of corruption.
You claim that you are not against the system, that you want to increase the share of psychiatry in the health budget in Mexico, that is to say decrease the relative share devoted to the true medicine, and increase the psychiatric staff:
“We are not against the system”
“only around 2% of the health budget invested in mental health”
“lack personal means”
“scant mental health budget”
“mental health has […] garnered even less support from the public coffers”
In addition, your group is mainly made up of “academics” and “professionals”, that is to say people working in psychiatric companies or institutions and in the spread of psychiatry. This conflict of interest was not fully declared in the article. This is problematic because many members of the group would directly and personally benefit from the increase in the budget of psychiatry in Mexico.
On the other hand, the collective revealed that some of its members consumed psychiatric narcotics, sometimes in massive proportions. This is also problematic because publicly advocating the consumption of toxic products is one way to promote them (Bernays, 1928; Amos, 2000: “Torches of Freedom”). Think about Camel, who interviewed doctors who smoked cigarettes.
Research shows that the increase in psychiatric budgets across history and countries is correlated with a decrease in the recovery rate (Jääskeläinen, 2012), an increase in the suicide rate (Burgess, 2004), and the increase in the mortality of psychiatric patients relative to the general population (Hayes, 2017). Moreover, the increase in budgets is not associated with an effective enlargement of rights.
This indifference to the facts, this sordid obsession to public money, this complacency towards neurotoxins, reflect the corporatist origin of this so-called “patient movement”, actually under the control of people who have a direct financial or professional interest in the development of the psychiatry.
Amos, Amanda, and Margaretha Haglund. “From Social Taboo to “Torch of Freedom”: the Marketing of Cigarettes to Women .” Tobacco Control 9.1 (2000). Web. 28 Apr 2010.
Bernays, E. L. (1928) Propaganda. Routledge.
Burgess, P., Pirkis, J., Jolley, D., Whiteford, H., & Saxena, S. (2004). Do nations’ mental health policies, programs and legislation influence their suicide rates? An ecological study of 100 countries. Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 38(11-12), 933-939.
Jääskeläinen, E., Juola, P., Hirvonen, N., McGrath, J. J., Saha, S., Isohanni, M., … & Miettunen, J. (2012). A systematic review and meta-analysis of recovery in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia bulletin, 39(6), 1296-1306.
Hayes, J. F., Marston, L., Walters, K., King, M. B., & Osborn, D. P. (2017). Mortality gap for people with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia: UK-based cohort study 2000–2014. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 211(3), 175-181.
Some legal axes to advance your situation:
_ Blind expertise. Various studies have shown that psychiatrists’ assessments are not independent, and that psychiatrists rely on the record and advice of their colleagues rather than on their own opinion. The underlying reason is that psychiatric diagnosis and predictions are highly questionable and psychiatrists are unable to make the same diagnosis or prognosis without communicating with each other. But this is also highly unscientific and biased from scratch.
_ Separation of psychiatric expertise and psychiatric care. Psychiatric expertise must focus exclusively on the diagnosis and dangerousness, without pronouncing or even a priori knowing the treatment used. Psychiatric care is polluted by considerations that have nothing to do with diagnosis, such as compliance or denial of the disease. But it is possible to be not dangerous without being compliant and to reintegrate into society without recognizing his diagnosis. Whoever prescribes or participates in the care of the patient should not have the opportunity to participate in the expertise, in order to avoid that expertise is distorted by internal disciplinary considerations or personal issues.
_ Falsity of the medical file. The expertise can not in any case be based on the file, because it can contain erroneous, doubtful or false informations. Indeed, the medical file is not subject to the contradictory principle: its parts are added to the discretion of the administration alone, and the patient has no way either to add exculpatory material, or to question inculpatory material. In the absence of respect for the contradictory principle, the file must be rejected: each piece of the file must imperatively can be disputed, otherwise this piece must be considered as null.
Perfect independence of expertise. The expertise of diagnosis and prediction of dangerousness must be carried out in several blind sessions.
Perfect separation of psychiatric expertise and psychiatric care, to avoid malfeasance in one way or the other, as required by the scientific method and by the separation of medical and punitive attributions.
Respect of the contradictory principle, and rejection of the parts which were not the subject of this principle.
Good luck in your fight.
First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your research initiative.
In addition, the absence of relapse, defined as the need for rehospitalization, is an extraordinarily good result. Especially since you have passed the period of beginning of weaning, the most at risk of relapse.
I have some reservations about the pace and the weaning order suggest to your patients.
1) I do not think that a patient who is poorly dependent on psychotropic drugs requires such a long withdrawal. The duration of weaning should be a function of the duration of exposure: the longer and the most intense is the exposure, the longer the weaning time should be.
One-day, high-dose exposure requires weaning? I think not.
An exhibition for a week? maybe two-three days.
A one-year exhibition? three or four months.
An exhibition of more than 5 years? Maybe it will take a weaning of more than one year.
But it also depends on the medication, the motivation of the person and his anxiety. It depends on his surroundings and other social conditions. Typically, you can not compare benzodiazepine dependence, whose withdrawal is torture, and dependence on Haldol, whose withdrawal is often a physical and psychological relief, despite the risk of relapse.
2) The decrease of one drug after another has the advantage of indicating, in case of withdrawal syndrome, which drug is at the cause, since you only decreases one at a time. However, this weaning order has the drawback of considerably lengthening the duration of the overall weaning, and of delaying the start of weaning of the other drugs, which continue to do damage during this time.
In addition, some drugs, in polypharmacy, have antagonistic effects. Therefore, decreasing them at the same time may be easier than decreasing them one by one (when the client is taking a sedative and a stimulant, for example).
Of course, you are anxious to cause relapse of your patients, because the rate of rehospitalization is easily measured, while the decrease in toxicity of drugs by weaning is less obvious. Have you done biological tests to your clients to check the progress of their health? Is there a control group where such tests have been done?
If this is not the case, you are missing an objective measure that could be extremely useful when exposing your results. For is the progressive suppression of drug toxicity, not one of the goals of weaning?
This is the normal runing of the “free” press: The 5 Filters of the Mass Media Machine
Robert Withaker or other Mad In America authors should expect to be the subject of a denigration campaign at some point in the future, if their audience and speech exceeds certain limits, especially on TV show.
Do not expect loyalty among journalists. On the contrary, they will use scientifically proven means to discredit you:
_ ask unexpected, complex and multiple questions that require thought, research and rigor, but require short and immediate answers,
_ appeal to public opinion, common sense, and popular sentiments,
_ rely on non-existent, questionable or misunderstood scientific research that can not be challenged without rigorous verification,
_ use the editing: select the plans to give an impression of hesitation, stupidity or ignorance of the person interviewed, or mount the plans in a wrong order,
_ use advertisements that contradict the speech,
_ distributing speech in an unfair and biased manner,
“Mass shootings” are a “social subject” whose media coverage largely exceeds the objective importance.
Mass shootings in 2018:
373 deaths (gunviolencearchive.org)
Opioid overdoses in 2018:
68,557 deaths (US drug overdose deaths fell slightly in 2018)
Excess mortality due to hypnotics in 2010:
320,000 to 507,000 deaths (Hypnotics’ association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study)
Only hypnotics cause 1000 times more deaths than mass shootings.
If the press was objective, it would not even talk about these news items.
An objective press would talk about the real mass murders, that there are hundreds of thousands of people dying every year in the United States, and millions more who are physically, socially and psychologically disabled by means of deliberate chemical poisoning.
And this real mass murder, which makes mass shootings absolutely insignificant by comparison, is not only legal, but also encouraged by the press, which repeats that these psychotropic drugs are good for (mental) health and even save lives.
Here is a lucid article.
Teachers are the touts of psychiatry. No wonder psychiatrists say they need to be better indoctrinated.
There is no factual difference between the state and the mafia, only a difference of legitimacy. Both organize their small society through violence, drug trafficking, and even sexual venality (marriage and prostitution).
For both official servants and mafiosi, radical repression is fine.
Enrico Gnaulati, let me ask you a question:
Is psychotherapy a medical act or a cultural act?
If we take the trouble to think about it, we will see the problem differently.
Does “mental illness” exist? Can an illness be “mental”? As an antipsychiatrist, I say: “no”.
So what is psychotherapy? What can a psychotherapist and his client do well together?
Psychotherapy is a cultural act. The therapist and his client speak together according to a particular cultural mode, which has a particular cultural meaning.
In this, psychotherapy is not distinguished from cartomancy, Christian confession or shamanism. It occupies the same social place, according to a different cultural mode. Psychotherapy is steeped in a scientific philosophy, but it is rarely scientific, and its effectiveness is not science-based: psychotherapy is effective because it corresponds to the culture of the client and the therapist, and because the therapist and his client are in phase through this special cultural trait.
Finally, cultural acts also relate to power, that is, culture imposed by the state. If psychotherapy is reimbursed, it is partly controlled by the state, which is unacceptable. The state uses culture for repressive purposes, and psychotherapy is associated with state university, psychiatric hospitals, and public servants. Psychologists are a corporation that obeys orders.
That’s why, as a psychotherapist, I am against reimbursement, and for liberal psychotherapy; the psychotherapist must stop presenting himself as a doctor, stop presenting his client as ill and his acts as medical. He is not a doctor, his client is not sick and his actions are not medical. All this is cultural, and nothing else.
If you want to make psychotherapy accessible, drastically reduce your fees; psychologists, like siberian shamans and african marabouts, think they have come out of Jupiter’s thigh.
Low and adapted to client fees = more clients.
Thank you for this article.
Thank you very much. Peter Simons, your watch work is very useful.
Meaghan Buisson’s pro-MDMA commentary is just great because it’s the most honest thing a MDMA promoter can write.
Yes, MDMA is a drug used to commit sexual assault and rape, such as GHB. Even a therapist of the most holy and very serious MAPS could not resist sleeping with a patient using MDMA. Currently, the patient has sued her therapist.
Yes, MAPS has negotiated an agreement with FDA & co to obtain a monopoly on the distribution of MDMA. Will MAPS participate in clinical trials that will allow the FDA to grant this monopoly? It would not even be surprising.
Yes, MDMA weaning syndrome is brief, but it is also extremely intense. This is the reason why many MDMA consumers take heroin for the descent. In psychiatry, it is benzodiazepines that are used, with the same objective and the same result.
One of MDMA’s problems is that consumers no longer perceive negative emotions, and perceive positive emotions that are unrelated to reality:
_ Oh, that’s weird! Whoever gave me MDMA is sodomizing me. However, before taking MDMA, I had the impression that he was a big lecherous pig, dishonest and malicious. It must be a conincidence: love is blind. In addition, he has benzodiazepines/opioids for later, if I feel bad!
_ Curious! MAPS has created a for-profit company to monopolize the sale of MDMA. They will make billions with that. I thought it was distributing it for the good of humanity, so that everyone would be happy! I am very surprised.
And 6 years later:
_ I became a real shit, addicted to benzodiazepines and/or opioids. My serotinergic system is screwed up: MDMA don’t work any more. I have no taste for anything. However, I am still in love with my prescriber, who has done very well in life. He became a millionaire: proof that MDMA is not bad for everyone, especially for those who sell it and do not take it.
I know, I said that to tease you. But “to minimize the drug” is ambiguous: it can mean zero drugs, or just a little drug.
Moreover, in France, the “pill shaming” does not exist, or rather is not a subject of society, because everyone is already ashamed to take drugs. On the other hand, there is the “no-pill shaming”, to shame someone who does not take it, while he “should”. To this, we can answer that the one who do “no-pill shaming” is a mentally retarded, a sheep, a doggie to his psychiatrist; which is usually the case because he has actually accepted drugs out of ignorance or submission.
We also have the masochists, for whom drugs are the proof that they are inferior, and sometimes we attend strange debates where polytoxicomaniacs dispute the golden palm of the sickest and the most dependent: “– Ho yes, I’m taking this and that, what am I sick, and you? — I’m taking this, and even I’ve asked my psychiatrist for more drugs and he’s refused! Yet I need it! — We’re really sunk! We’ll take drugs all our lives! We’re the sickest and the most compliant patients of the service, we’ll take everything our psychiatrist gives us and more!”
Finally, we have the full fascists for whom “no-pill shaming” does not exist because you are an animal and animals are not ashamed. For them, drugs are an instrument of coercion, as the stick or the whip may be, and they are far too much penetrated by the conviction of your inferiority to take the least interest in your feelings.
And then, it’s still funny the concept of “pill shaming”. In reality, you can not shame someone who is not ashamed, you can only shame someone who is already ashamed in his heart. And why is he ashamed? Because taking drugs is naturally shameful: it is the proof that you are inferior, that you are a “mentally ill”, a subhuman.
And the psychiatrists may say, “No! You are not subhumans!” It does not prevent them from locking you up, tying you up and drugging you like a subhuman, and even as a subanimal. In pig farming, are pigs tied to a stretcher for days and days, with a haldol sting in the thigh? Butchers would be shocked. That’s why psychiatric hospitals and slaughterhouses are still separate institutions.
This whole discussion of “pill shaming” is a sign that there is a shame somewhere, but nobody wants to take it.
In conclusion I will say that it is not desirable to drive someone into more shame, but it would be counterproductive to act as if it did not exist. In my experience, tell someone:
“You do not need drugs. Your psychiatrist is a mentally retarded and a fascist, and here is the scientific proof. I will help you to make a rational withdrawal. Surround yourself with people who respect you and who value you; and find strength in you to free yourself. ”
is much more favorable to the ego than to say:
“You still have a little need for drugs.”
Which means nothing but:
“You still are a little lower than me.”
And there, without doing “pill shaming”, you multiply the shame by ten.
Note that I know you do not say that, and that I write to you to give you my opinion.
There are many ways to approach the problem and I think yours is very good.
It’s weird as comment. It’s a bit like you was saying: “To avoid hurting yourself, make the smallest incisions you can in your skin.”
Since neuroleptics are intended to be used for life, that is, nearly 50 years for someone starting at age 20, the short-term effectiveness of these products is of no importance in relation to their long-term effectiveness.
If neuroleptics reduce the symptoms of psychosis for 1 to 2 years, but they increase them during the next 48 years, not to mention the side effects of these products, the therapeutic balance is negative, and these products can not be called medecines, but poisons.
Even after weaning, one to three years later, the rate of relapse is higher with neuroleptics, compared with placebo (Schooler, 1967; Rappaport, 1978), which means that the therapeutic balance is negative even in case of planned weaning.
Throughout the life of the subject, the therapeutic balance of placebo is always higher than that of neuroleptics, notwithstanding an illusory improvement in the short term with neuroleptics: with and without weaning.
In other words, giving neuroleptics to someone means nothing more than lending him 6 months of non-psychosis, to make him pay for 60 months of psychosis throughout his full life, not to mention the other side effects.
It’s an usurer and mafioso behavior, and it’s not doing any favors to someone to lend him $60,000, and then force him to repay $600,000 by blood and sweat, and by locking him regularly into the psychiatric asylum, which is nothing more than a metaphor for the prison for debt.
Long-acting neuroleptics have only one acceptable use: withdrawal (Viguera 1997). Long-acting neuroleptics provide safe, independent withdrawal, without much dependence on a psychiatrist always ready to postpone or stop weaning at the slightest incident.
Rappaport M, Hopkins H, Hall K, Belleza T, Silverman J. Are there schizophrenics for whom drugs may be unnecessary or contraindicated?. Int Pharmacopsychiatry 1978 ; 13 :100–11.
Schooler N, Goldberg S, Boothe H, Cole J. One year after discharge : community adjustment of schizophrenic patients. Am J Psychiatry 1967 ; 123 :986–95.
Viguera A, Baldessarini R, Hegarty J, Van Kammen D, Tohen M. Clinical risk following abrupt and gradual withdrawal of maintenance neuroleptic treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1997 ; 54 :49–55.
It is probably necessary to talk about the use of MDMA as a means of social domination, because this is the main issue of legal or illegal drugs.
Many drug dealers are highly degraded, both morally and physically. They are often violent people, ready for all the baseness, all the ignominies to make money. They are also very marginalized, under the constant threat of being arrested by the police and spending many years in prison.
In these conditions, it is almost impossible for them to find a companion in the normal way.
But there is one solution: MDMA and heroin. You can be the worst junk, the worst criminal, you can create artificial emotions and sensations with MDMA and heroin, you can chemically force a little junkie to fall in love with you. She will probably not realize that her emotions have been chemically forged, and you can mistreat her as much as you want, she will not defend herself.
Here is an inspiring testimony:
“I tested the ecstazy and it was great, especially with my sweetheart, it was like we was one. […]
Then he made me test the heroine. And then, I totally loved it. I felt so reassured, so protected and all the more so because I was in his arms.
In short, my love has become my dealer, so to speak. He would bring some and I was entitled to my share. I never buy it.
Then from year to year I became a real rag, depressed at will. I did not do anything but put my ass on the couch. I had my subutex [Buprenorphine] prescribed by my doctor. But that never replaced the heroine. […]
And now I see my man continue to take heroin because he knows how to manage it. He has already stopped a whole year all products without any harm. And I am beside him like a shit, who has no taste for anything, no more desire, no more passion.
I do not know if the cam made me become depressive or if I was already but since I am, I do not taste anything and it will be now 5 years. [She met her dealer 6 years ago]
Life is a bitch.”
L’amour et la came. Pas tous égaux.
Some psychiatrists and pharmacists want to get the legal monopoly of MDMA, as a way to quickly hook their customers, because the effect is intense and short. Similarly, the withdrawal syndrome is intense and short: it is in this window of sulfur that psychiatrists and pharmacists can seek to “relieve” their clients with more durable addictive drugs, for example, benzodiazepines (since heroine is still reserved to street dealers).
MDMA should not be considered in isolation: MDMA is a special weapon in a global strategy of alienation.
I read various testimonials on a forum of French drug users.
A consumer of MDMA happily explains that he gave lots of hugs to many people during his trip, and that everyone loved him, and that he loved everyone … That he was able to get lots of free drug, and give it to everyone …
Another worries that he has been accused of theft. He does not understand: in his memory, he thought that his friend had given him his things, not that he had stolen them … Another did a bad trip, and his girlfriend, who was also under MDMA, is panicked: she did not know what to do and was very agitated.
It seems that MDMA increases the feeling of empathy, while it decreases the real empathy.
MDMA consumers are more likely to associate with positive emotions, but have a hard time understanding negative emotions. During weaning, it is the opposite: there is no longer any capacity to feel pleasure, and negative emotions are felt violently, caricatured. A weaning consumer explained that he had burst into tears and felt hopelessly desperate because he had dropped his fork on the floor.
I interviewed an ex-MDMA user I know very well. Here’s how he described the effects:
“A few hours of intense pleasure for two days of intense displeasure. Although the pleasure at the beginning of the intake is high, the balance of pleasure/displeasure is very negative because of the withdrawal syndrome. It is also an ultra-fast addition drug: if, after a few hours you take a second dose to prolong the effects, it will be much less effective, and the third or fourth dose will probably have no effect. In this case, you know that the withdrawal effets will be extremely harsh.
During the two days of weaning, you just feel extremely bad, you have no possibility of feeling pleasure, and it is only because you know, intellectually, that it will not last that you do not commit suicide. At the emotional level, however, you have the impression that the suffering will be eternal and you want to end it by any means, typically taking heroin. The consumption of MDMA can therefore be a gateway to opioid consumption, in order to reduce the withdrawal syndrome.
Finally, what they call “improving empathy” translates concretely into the desire to touch everyone and to be touched by anyone. More prosaically, a person under MDMA can commit non-solicities touching, that is to say, sexual assault, or conversely be touched by anyone, which can lead them to be victims of aggression.
From an outside point of view, a person under MDMA is obviously in a second state, gesturing and gurning like a dement. He is in a state of obvious vulnerability and can easily be abused. It only remains to rely on the “benevolence” of street dealers to “help” partygoers to withstand weaning with heroin…”
Why not publish an article on the role that alcohol could play to fight “social phobia”? And the heroine against “melancholia”?
This propaganda for drugs is repugnant.
We do not want pro-drug articles here! Get out the Big-Pharma propagandists! Get out the criminals, get out the monks who sanctify them!
Get out, get out, get out!
In 1843, Karl Marx was already describing this subdivision of civil society into myriads of small spheres that are fighting each other, and the way this elevates the rulers:
“It is a case of describing the dull reciprocal pressure of all social spheres one on another, a general inactive ill-humor, a limitedness which recognizes itself as much as it mistakes itself, within the frame of government system which, living on the preservation of all wretchedness, is itself nothing but wretchedness in office.
What a sight! This infinitely proceeding division of society into the most manifold races opposed to one another by petty antipathies, uneasy consciences, and brutal mediocrity, and which, precisely because of their reciprocal ambiguous and distrustful attitude, are all, without exception although with various formalities, treated by their rulers as conceded existences. And they must recognize and acknowledge as a concession of heaven the very fact that they are mastered, ruled, possessed! And, on the other side, are the rulers themselves, whose greatness is in inverse proportion to their number!”
Below, he asks the question:
“Where, then, is the positive possibility of a German emancipation?
Answer: In the formulation of a class with radical chains, a class of civil society which is not a class of civil society, an estate which is the dissolution of all estates, a sphere which has a universal character by its universal suffering and claims no particular right because no particular wrong, but wrong generally, is perpetuated against it; which can invoke no historical, but only human, title; which does not stand in any one-sided antithesis to the consequences but in all-round antithesis to the premises of German statehood; a sphere, finally, which cannot emancipate itself without emancipating itself from all other spheres of society and thereby emancipating all other spheres of society, which, in a word, is the complete loss of man and hence can win itself only through the complete re-winning of man. This dissolution of society as a particular estate is the proletariat.”
It does not matter whether you are homosexual, transsexual or otherwise. What matters is that you belong to the lowest class of society, because then you have no sphere below you that you could crush to raise yourself.
Since a sphere has another sphere below it to hit it, it can not be revolutionary.
It is not as blacks, homosexuals, transsexuals or anyone else, a revolution is possible, but only as human being, by people below all, who have no one to oppress.
A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Introduction
We find a similar design in Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice:
“Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal’d by the same means, warm’d and cool’d by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.”
— Act III, scene I
Although oppressed as a Jew, it is as a human being that Shylock claims his rights and deeds.
Warning: two first hypertext links of D. Caplan are broken. A publisher should correct them.
Here are several ecological studies on the link between psychiatry and suicides:
To test the hypothesis that the presence of national mental health policies, programs and legislation would be associated with lower national suicide rates.
Suicide rates from 100 countries were regressed on mental health policy, program and legislation indicators.
Contrary to the hypothesized relationship, the study found that after introducing mental health initiatives (with the exception of substance abuse policies), countries’ suicide rates rose.
It is of concern that most mental health initiatives are associated with an increase in suicide rates. However, there may be acceptable reasons for the observed findings, for example initiatives may have been introduced in areas of increasing need, or a case-finding effect may be operating. Data limitations must also be considered.
Shah, A., Bhandarkar, R., & Bhatia, G. (2010). The relationship between general population suicide rates and mental health funding, service provision and national policy: a cross-national study. International journal of social psychiatry, 56(4), 448-453.
The main aims were to examine the relationship between general population suicide rates and the presence of national policies on mental health, funding for mental health, and measures of mental health service provision.
Data on general population suicide rates for both genders were obtained from the World Health Organization (WHO) databank available on the WHO website. Data on the presence of national policies on mental health, funding for mental health and measures of mental health service provision were obtained from the Mental Health Atlas 2005, also available on the WHO website.
The main findings were: (i) there was no relationship between suicide rates in both genders and different measures of mental health policy, except they were increased in countries with mental health legislation; (ii) there was a significant positive correlation between suicide rates in both genders and the percentage of the total health budget spent on mental health; and (iii) suicide rates in both genders were higher in countries with greater provision of mental health services, including the number of psychiatric beds, psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses, and the availability of training in mental health for primary care professionals.
Cross-national ecological studies using national-level aggregate data are not helpful in establishing a causal relationship (and the direction of this relationship) between suicide rates and mental health funding, service provision and national policies. The impact of introducing national policies on mental health, increasing funding for mental health services and increasing mental health service provision on suicide rates requires further examination in longitudinal within-country studies.
Rajkumar, A. P., Brinda, E. M., Duba, A. S., Thangadurai, P., & Jacob, K. S. (2013). National suicide rates and mental health system indicators: an ecological study of 191 countries. International journal of law and psychiatry, 36(5-6), 339-342.
The relative contributions of psychiatric morbidity and psychosocial stress to suicide, and the efficacy of mental health systems in reducing population suicide rates, are currently unclear. This study, therefore, aimed to investigate whether national suicide rates are associated with their corresponding mental health system indicators.
Relevant data were retrieved from the following sources: the World Health Organization, the United Nations Statistics Division and the Central Intelligence Agency World Fact book. Suicide rates of 191 countries were compared with their mental health system indicators using an ecological study design and multivariate non-parametric robust regression models.
Significant positive correlations between suicide rates and mental health system indicators (p<0.001) were documented. After adjusting for the effects of major macroeconomic indices using multivariate analyses, numbers of psychiatrists (p=0.006) and mental health beds (p<0.001) were significantly positively associated with population suicide rates.
Countries with better psychiatric services experience higher suicide rates. Although these associations should be interpreted with caution, as the issues are complex, we suggest that population-based public health strategies may have greater impact on national suicide rates than curative mental health services for individuals.
Sher, L. (2016). are suicide rates related to the Psychiatrist Density? a cross-national study. Frontiers in public health, 3, 280.
Most suicide victims have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. Treatment of psychiatric disorders should reduce the number of suicides. Higher psychiatrist-per-population ratio increases the opportunity for contact between the patient and psychiatrist. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the higher psychiatrist density (PD) is associated with lower suicide rates. The aim of this study is to examine the association between suicide rates and the PD in the European Union countries. These countries are economically and culturally connected and located on the same continent. This is an attempt to study a relatively homogenous sample.
Correlations were computed to examine relationships between age-standardized suicide rates in women and men, the PD, and the gross national income (GNI) per capita. Partial correlations were used to examine the relation between the PD and age-standardized suicide rates in women and men controlling for the GNI per capita.
Higher suicide rates in women correlated with the higher PD. Controlling for the GNI per capita, the PD positively correlated with suicide rates both in women and in men. There was a trend toward a negative correlation between the GNI per capita and suicide rates in men. The PD was positively associated with the GNI per capita.
Probably, higher suicide rates directly and/or indirectly affect the decisions made by policy- and lawmakers regarding mental health services and how many psychiatrists need to be trained. The results of this study should be treated with caution because many confounding variables are not taken into account.
Conversely, here is a ecological study on the link between social support and suicides:
Šedivy, N. Z., Podlogar, T., Kerr, D. C., & De Leo, D. (2017). Community social support as a protective factor against suicide: A gender-specific ecological study of 75 regions of 23 European countries. Health & place, 48, 40-46.
By studying differences in suicide rates among different geographical regions one may identify factors connected to suicidal behaviour on a regional level. Many studies have focused on risk factors, whereas less is known about protective factors, such as social support. Using suicide rates and data from the European Social Survey (ESS) we explore the association between regional level social support indicator and suicide rates in 23 European countries in 2012. Linear multiple regression analyses using region as the unit of analysis revealed inverse relationships between mean respondent valuing of social support and suicide rates for both genders, with some indication of a stronger relationship among men. Social support may have a protective effect against suicide on a regional level. Thus, increasing social support could be an effective focus of preventive activities, resulting in lowering suicide rates, with greater expected results among men.
Note that for the link between psychiatry and suicide, some researchers insist heavily that “correlation does not imply causality”, but for the link between social support and protection against suicide, they more readily admit that it could be causal, even if they use the same kind of analytical method.
Hmm. It happens that the child remains idle at home, for a prejudice that he feels he has suffered. In particular, he feels that he has been subjected to parental and school authority without any personal benefit, without ever being able to realize his dreams, and on the contrary that he has been lied to make him work, to make him obey, not for himself, but for the others. Above the market, he is treated as mentally ill because he does not want to, because he can not meet these foreign aspirations.
I think that shutting down the wifi should not work things out, on the contrary, but a much more radical separation is necessary: the parents could give a modest alimony for a while so that the son can live outside from home and have time to find work and make a living.
The amount of support and its duration could be negotiated explicitly, the main thing was to break the link of toxic interdependence that rotten the family life.
When family members do not agree, it is reasonable to separate in good term, in a negotiated way. At age 19, the child is big enough to make a living, with the distant support of his parents. Do not treat an adult as a child, so he will behave like an adult. It is not a question of cutting all the links, but of putting distance.
According to Burgess and his team, only drug prevention policies are associated with a decrease in the suicide rate. Mental health policies, mental health programs, mental health legislation and especially “therapeutic” psychotropic policies (which are used to “fight” against illegal drug addiction) are associated with a severe increase in the suicide rate.
Burgess, P., Pirkis, J., Jolley, D., Whiteford, H., & Saxena, S. (2004). Do Nations’ Mental Health Policies, Programs and Legislation Influence their Suicide Rates? An Ecological Study of 100 Countries. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 38(11-12), 933–939. doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2004.01484.x
Evidence That More Psychiatry Means More Suicide
Here is psychiatric expenses in France in 2016 (euros):
disorder: Number of persons, total expenditure, expenses per person
Psychotic disorders: 417300, 4976000000, 11924
Mood and neurotic disorders: 1256600, 6229000000, 4957
Mental impairment: 125900, 666000000, 5290
Addictive disorders: 292900, 1361000000, 4647
Psychiatric disorders beginning in childhood: 128800, 1277000000, 9915
Other psychiatric disorders: 389800, 1796000000, 4607
This represents 4% of the population and 10% of health expenditures.
However, this includes only people with a “long-term condition”, consumers of psychiatric treatments are 5-6 times more numerous.
It does not include non-medical expenses such as housing and disability pensions.
Insurers reimburse billions of dollars to psychiatrists, which increases the amount of psychiatric treatment.
Hundreds of thousands of people die each year because the insurers reimburse these charlatans’ treatments.
What kills most in America? Psychiatry or mafia? Just the hypnotics killed between 320000 and 507000 people in 2010 in the United States! (Kripke, 2012, p. 6, “Conclusions”)
Whoever gives a penny to a psychiatrist is himself a criminal.
Kripke DF, Langer RD, Kline LE. Hypnotics’ association with mortality or cancer: a matched cohort study. BMJ Open 2012;2: e000850. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-000850
According to Georges Devereux, the trauma is not directly related to the severity of the adversity. It is related to the relationship between the severity of adversity and the size of the adapted cultural defenses. This is why children are more susceptible to trauma than adults because their cultural defenses are not sufficiently trained or strong. But anyone can succumb to trauma if their defenses are not culturally adapted to adversity. Quantity vs quality…
This relationship between adversity and cultural defenses is of paramount importance for understanding trauma. Psychosis is, basically, the creation of an idiosyncratic culture (beliefs, rituals, visions …) to face adversity. Psychotherapy is a way of dealing with the adversity one has experienced during childhood with the cultural defenses acquired in adulthood.
The research on ACE is actually not at all new, but it provides statistics and methodology adapted to the contemporary era.
Interesting tips. Would you have an opinion on the situation I encountered?
A woman has a washing OCD that worsens to the point of forcing her to stop working and return to live with her parents.
At home, the mother participates in washing rituals to “relieve” her daughter, then the daughter stops her rituals almost completely and lets her mother perform them in her place.
The daughter feels more and more guilty of the rituals her mother performs for her, while the anxiety increases, and the rituals themselves become more and more agonizing.
The mother is exhausted in performing the rituals.
The father, who refuses to perform the rituals, blames the situation on his daughter.
The family conflict is intense. In the end, the daughter is forcibly hospitalized by the father.
This extreme case perhaps illustrates a neglected aspect of OCD. OCD seems to cover three roles: the one who dirties, the one who is dirty and the one who is washing (or equivalent). These three roles can be distributed differently in the family.
It is not impossible that the OCD is, in a transfigured form… a triangle of Karpman.
I do not think more research is needed. Why not put doctors and pharmacists drug traffickers in jail? There is no objective difference between the trafficking of legal and illegal narcotics. I think the really brutal repression must be used against these people. Something that strikes them with stupor and terror.
The destruction of drug traffickers by uniform repression, regardless of the “legal” or “illegal” status of the drug, will have an extraordinarily beneficial effect on public health. These people are not necessary to society. Their disappearance in prison will have no negative effect on society. We have everything to gain by not being delicate.
Our defenders of the good found the solution to the evil: to destroy the polarized spirit and to launch a great world discussion on how to accept the point of view of others. The boss will discuss with the worker, the officer with the soldier, the United States with the Islamic State, and even Donald Trump will be able to discuss with the immigrants, if he wishes, if he really has the will. Is it not through discussion that the contradictions are resolved, that the “polarized mind” is destroyed?
And did not Gandhi say his friend Hitler was the only one able to prevent War to happen? That the English, the Jews and the Nazis had to sit together to talk? The contradictions are only in the mind, there are no real contradictions, the whole fault is in the “polarized mind”!
You forgot to put a link to the Mosher’s letter! Here it is:
Letter of Resignation from the American Psychiatric Association
No, mice on antidepressants give birth to autistic mice, and it seems that women on antidepressants also give birth to more children with autism.
For the moment nothing is certain, but this type of research, and the way in which psychiatry uses it (MORE DRUG), is worrying.
“If they also show enhanced serotonin receptor activity in the same area of the brain, the team plans to test whether FDA-approved serotonin receptor blockers can normalize their behaviors.”
These people are crazy.
Far from recommending the prohibition of antidepressants for pregnant women, as is already the case with alcohol which causes the Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, these individuals do not dispute the voluntary intoxication of pregnant women by the doctors, but on the contrary they promise that they will find a magic bullet to cure the “Fetal SSRI spectrum disorders”, an illness they begin to “discover”.
Psychiatry is telling us, “We are discovering that we are causing congenital and probably hereditary diseases by exposing children to neurotoxic drugs in utero, but do not worry! We are going to give them even more neurotoxic drugs, which should improve the situation (we hope)”.
There is no drug to treat FASD because it is a developmental syndrome, and if the “Fetal SSRI spectrum disorders” really exists, there will be no drugs to treat it either, for the same reason.
That’s why research will never change the psychiatry – nor will it abolish it, of course – that to stop psychiatry, we need repression of the state. And I’m not talking about a little repression, like penalties or prohibitions to practice, I’m talking about a brutal repression, really staggering and devastating, as the state knows very well to use when it deems necessary.
Another weak decision. We want repression, repression, repression! For all the violence they have done, they must suffer in turn! A revolutionary state must crush these criminals! Violence against violence, the power of the state will not always be in their hands!
Here again, a crime has been committed, and no one is punished! As soon as it has a doctor’s title, it can make drug trafficking without consequence! It is the repression that is necessary, the brutal repression of a pitiless state against the high officials and the slavish and privileged Nomenklatura!
CRIME = REPRESSION.
> Unfortunately, a new, more extensive study has failed to replicate this finding. It’s the third such study to show no effect.
Why do you say “unfortunately”?
The last time they found an “effective” treatment for schizophrenia (neuroleptics), the rate of recovery of schizophrenics decreased from 17.7% in 1941-1955 to 6% in 1996-2012 (Jääskeläinen, 2012).
The non-reproduction of the preliminary results is a good new, insofar as it avoids a new sanitary catatrophe, as have been all psychiatric treatments deemed “effective” by psychiatrists.
The research paradigm, according to which psychiatric drug toxicomania is the solution to life problems, is false, and any “advancement” in this field means nothing but the development of psychiatry and the dive into artificiel hell of a ever greater mass of people.
Jääskeläinen, E., Juola, P., Hirvonen, N., McGrath, J. J., Saha , S., Isohanni, M., Veijola, J., Miettunen, J. (2012). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Recovery in Schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull (2013) 39 (6): 1296-1306. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbs130 https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/39/6/1296/1884290/A-Systematic-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-Recovery
Indeed, increasing the budgets of psychiatry means nothing more than feeding the monster.
But who can blame you for this error in a past article? Nobody, no one can imagine what psychiatry is, before having seriously studied or lived it.
An institution is an organization that has the monopoly of a social function. By increasingly claiming monopolies over basic social functions such as education and medicine, the bureaucracy is expanding its hold on society and using it to demand more money and more power. For that, it sabotages its own service: it can do it, since it proceeds from the monopoly! And it is hostage society for the delivery of its services.
All this is very well explained by economists like Veblen, or many others who have studied the effects of monopoly. Assign yourself the monopoly of a social function, join other monopolies, build a tight network of production and distribution, then sabotage your own service to threaten the public with scarcity and ask for more money and power.
The more the monopolies develop and are interconnected, the more the quality of services deteriorates; and the more quality degrades the more monopolies can demand and obtain money and power. This is how bureaucracy spreads and destroys everything, stifles everything, controls everything.
People in rich countries do not realize what they are asking for. The US education system is not underfunded and $11727 per year and per child in primary (2015) is not a small sum.
You do not understand that it is your bureaucratic system itself that creates all this mass of “disabled” children? The overwhelming majority of “disabled” children have no physical illness. These children are designated as such only because they are rejected from the school system; materially, they have no organic trouble. You make your own handicapped people bureaucratically, and then you ask for more money to take care of them. The growth of the bureaucratic system is thus self-perpetuating.
This kind of artificially manufactured disability did not exist in the past of the United States, for example, in 1880. The Census at that time reported only an insignificant minority of children with disabilities, and most of them were physically disabled. Where does this new cohort of “mentally” handicapped children come from, for whom the bureaucracy needs funding? From the bureaucracy itself: it invents them, manufactures them and maintains them at the chain like automobiles and the public does not say anything, the public approves the increase of the budgets, as if it appreciated this type of comodities.
Thank you very much for this review.
It is important to note that many national laws prohibit doctors from forcing children to take treatment without the permission of their parents. The only exceptions are:
_ the child is in grave and imminent danger (road accident, fatal but curable illness…),
_ the prevention of contagious diseases (vaccines),
Apart from these exceptions, circumvented by the law, parents remain free to accept or refuse medical treatment for their child. Conversely, parents can not force a doctor to prescribe a particular treatment.
_ either the family and the doctor find an agreement that suits everyone, especially the child, who is the main interested,
_ either the family and the doctor do not find this agreement, and in this case the doctor is legally obliged to recuse himself, to reorient the family to another doctor, unless the family can find this other doctor by his own means.
Families must be aware that they can freely:
_ accept or refuse a proposed treatment for their child,
_ choose or change doctors for their child.
Doctors are only service providers, outside the family. It is up to the family to find a suitable provider who is attentive to the family members’ requests, especially the juvenile patient.
It reminds me of those cockroaches who were told that a cook could work in a clean kitchen.
Of course cockroaches find this horrible.
What will happen is that drug-free units will have better long-term results, and therefore these units will be closed. Like Soteria.
It also emphasizes that there is no need to discuss cockroaches about clean kitchens.
The negationism of psychiatrists about long-term scientific research can only be compared with that of the extreme right, which seeks to defend Nazism by explaining that gas chambers had never exist.
Yes, rather. With $ 34,000, you can pay a nanny full time for about a year (in the US). But hey: it is better to drug yourself for non-stop 60 hours and enrich dealers, is not it?
If heroin was tested as a depression-fighting molecule, there is no doubt that the FDA would approve it, because the FDA-recognized test methods do not make it possible to observe the long-term effects of the drugs.
The FDA’s approval methods are stupid by design, as serious methods of evaluation, ie long-term trials (> 2 years), would result in an almost systematic rejection of the psychotropic drugs.
The story of this man does not raise my compassion but my indignation and contempt.
This man who saw his wife die under Zoloft to enrich the pharmaceutical industry, would still be ready to give her to an experimental treatment that is not seriously tested. Maybe, brexanolone increases suicide even more than Zoloft!
And then: what is this “scientific” method in which we must take into account the irrational and emotional arguments of a man who lost his wife?
It’s shabby, just shabby: the FDA should be ashamed to use such methods to validate a drug.
“Mental Health” care must not be reimbursed:
1) The practice of psychiatry is charlatanism and no charlatanism must be repaid.
2) Psychotherapy is only a cultural conversation and as such must not be reimbursed. Psychotherapy is in no way different from practices such as Catholic confession or Siberian shamanism; it has the same social function, the same methods and the same results. The reimbursement of some psychotherapists to the detriment of others is a caste privilege that reinforces the corporatism and institutional association between psychotherapists, psychiatrists and health insurances.
3) Psychiatry must not be funded under any circumstances, and this judgment is bad news. It will allow psychiatrists to increase their income and plunder insurance and thus society as a whole, through contributions.
You graduated psychologists, you are privileged who benefit from reimbursement for practices of charlatanism or cultural conversations. You are accomplices in psychiatry with which you share the same privileges, especially in terms of money-back and corporatist and institutional interests.
Dare to pretend that you are better than a Catholic priest: do you have proof? You fulfill the same social function, you use the same methods and you have the same results. Your practice is not scientific, because it is not a technique practiced on an object, but a cultural conversation with a human being. “Technique” is actually “folklore”.
Psychotherapists and psychiatrists are new priest, and like priest, many are crooks, many have unjustified and scandalous economic and social privileges.
Students must associate to defend their rights. It is legitimate to post counter-propaganda on campus’ free expression boards to warn of the danger of the Student Counseling Services.
If I were faced with this problem, I will not hesitate to have A3 posters printed with the following message:
“The Student Counseling Services will not help you!
They can search to expel you from the university for one semester, or even definitively.
If you go to see them, you take the risk that they destroy your studies!
[QR code toward the article]”
I thank you for your article. You are an upright person who has struggled with her means for the cause of the children she was in charge of.
All this propaganda is an economic question.
Psychiatry has two polarized markets, and an intermediate market:
Pole 1 (intensive): The market for extra-judicial kidnappings, sequestration and torture of undesirables for the benefit of families and the state. This market is necessarily limited because it is the oppression of the majority on a minority, and the manufacture of a class of sub-men deprived of fundamental rights.
Pole 2 (extensive): The market for universal toxicomania, drug trafficking and psychotherapy, which in principle has no strict limit. Anyone can use drugs or electroshock voluntarily, so it is for psychiatry to present itself to its customers in the best possible light, by trying to dissociate themselves from the first market.
Between Poles 1 and 2: the middle market of people leaving psychiatric hospitals, supposedly “free” but actually subject to economic, social and family pressures to stay in the circuit, for example under the threat of rehospitalization, obliged to see a psychiatrist to continue to receive an invalidity pension, signing “therapeutic contracts” in which they agree to undergo injections in exchange for housing, etc., etc.
Psychiatry is a mafia continuum of violence, pressure and seduction.
Today, Mental Health Europe launches a big seduction campagn to increase psychiatric budgets, and tells us everything we want to hear, but we are not idiots: the money will be used to expand all markets because they work in synergy.
Against the proposal of Mental Health Europe, we must instead advocate for the reduction of budgets, for the dismissal of its agents in schools, immigration centers, hospitals, and wherever possible, and the best way to achieve this goal is the reduction of budgets.
Psychiatrists and their minions threaten us that if budgets are reduced, they will increase torture in psychiatric hospitals. The threat is in vain because in reality, the less money there is for hospitals, the fewer beds available, so the less torture there is. Psychiatry does not torture for free, it tortures because we feed it, because we give it money! Less money = less staff, less treatment, this is the absolute and direct goal of the anti-psychiatric movement.
You are a psychiatric industry’s submarine, designed to increase psychiatric spending, which is to increase your income.
Your organization is made up of psychiatrists who are engaged in the trafficking of legal narcotics, thereby participating in the murder and destruction of hundreds of thousands of people in Europe.
Who do you believe to be deceiving with your call to a more “psycho-social” and less “oppressive” psychiatry? You remain drug traffickers, lobbyists, seeking to enrich themselves by introducing your pawns in all sectors of society.
“Include mental health in all relevant policies, such as employment, migration, social affairs” (Manifest, 2019)
Billions of euros are devoted to the psychiatric industry in Europe, with therapeutic results lower than those of Africa. The solution according to you? Increase the budgets!
“Strategic investment in mental wellbeing can generate enormous economic and social returns.” (Infography, 2017)
You spread the lies of the psychiatric industry, like that 20% of teenagers are mentally ill (10 myths, 2017). Do you know the historical statistics of psychiatry?
In 1880, the United States government launched a massive survey, in which nearly 80,000 doctors in America’s 100,000 (!) were involved in the census of mentally ill people across the country, including outside the institutions. (Census Office, 1888, pp. IX and X).
Among people aged 10 to 19, the definition of adolescence according to WHO, the prevalence of madness was 0.02% (Census Office, 1888, pp. XV and XIX).
The prevalence of mental illness would have been multiplied by 1000 in just 140 years?
But yes, I think about it! All you do, as psychiatrists, is surreptitiously redefining your “nosography” from year to year, to include more and more “patients” who would have supposedly needed you. You change your words to seem less scary, but especially to expand your clientele, from the word “madness” to “mental illness”, then to “mental disorder” and finally your latest invention: “mental health problem”. I even read an article (Méréo, 2019) that heartache is a mental illness! You invade the whole society, like lice and rats. But you do it so gradually that very few people realize the trickery.
You are not doctors, you are fraudsters. Historical statics shows that you have never done a medical diagnosis: you are simply describing more and more normal behaviors and emotions as diseases or “problems”, to enrich yourself and increase your power.
Down with the psychiatric lobby! Down the masks!
Census Office (1888). Defective, dependant and delinquent classes of the population of United States, as returned at the thenth census (June 1, 1880). Washington, Government Printing Office. Repéré à : https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v21-02.pdf
Mental Health Europe, (2017) 10 Myths about mental health that you can help us debunk!, mhe-sme.org https://mhe-sme.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Flyer-A4-MHE-WEB.pdf
Mental Health Europe, (2017) 10 Things you should know about Mental Health, mhe-sme.org https://mhe-sme.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/10-things-you-should-know-1.pdf
Mental Health Europe, (2019) A manifesto for better mental health in Europe For the European Elections 2019, mhe-sme.org https://mhe-sme.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/MHE-Manifesto-EU-Elections-2019.pdf
Méréo Florence (2019) La pilule contre le chagrin d’amour arrive en France, Le Parisien, 13 février 2019, http://www.leparisien.fr/societe/la-pilule-contre-le-chagrin-d-amour-arrive-en-france-13-02-2019-8011425.php
If you want to hurt someone, tell him it’s for his good. Thus, he will be disarmed.
The perversity of these people has no limit.
It reminds me of this: migrant children are victims of rape and violence by ICE officials.
On the other hand, doctors inject massive doses of neuroleptics and other psychiatric drugs to prevent them from revolting or defending themselves.
This is the function of psychiatry: to destroy the brains of victims to protect criminals, and to participate in acts of torture under the guise of “cure mental illnesses”.
Several authors have developed the concept that a species is adapted to a certain degree of destruction, scarcity and mortality. In periods of excessive abundance, the species enters the phase of self-destruction because it is not adapted to such a level of abundance.
The most convincing experiment on this subject is the “Death Squared” of John B. Calhoun (1973), in which scientists offer all the necessary comfort to mice, in a small space. The mice multiply to the point of being too numerous to maintain their social structure: the juveniles are no longer raised correctly and the sexual behaviors eventually disappear, to the point of bringing the colony to extinction.
The authors emphasize that the mouse experience is not directly transposable to humans: there are third world cities in which the human density is much higher than in the cities of the developed countries, and yet the social relations are pretty good. There is no direct link between population density and social breakdown. The central idea of Calhoun is that an excess of resources leads to a destructuration of the relations of the species with its environment and with itself, that is to say an ecological and social imbalance, which can lead to death of the species. For Calhoun, a prolonged excess of resources is just as dangerous as a prolonged shortage.
Some authors who developed this concept, each in their own way:
Karl Marx: the development of the productive forces contradicts the relations of production, which leads either to a revolutionary transformation of the whole society, or to the destruction of the classes in struggle. Karl Marx observes that man can change his social structure, and therefore that there are several cycles of accumulation of the surplus. The communist society is supposed to rationalize production and thus to prevent the overproduction that leads to self-destruction and death.
Thorstein Veblen: concept of sabotage and conspicuous consumption. Overproduction is such that social classes sabotage each other, by strikes and lockouts. Monopolies are formed for the conservation of privileges and the status quo in the most unefficient way: unions, universities, corporations, diplomas, agreements between the state and big business for profit maximization. More and more useless and harmful commodities and services are producted for the conspicuous consumption. The state is itself a vector of waste and monumental destruction.
Sigmund Freud poses the concept of “death drive”.
Georges Bataille: the ruling class, which can not prevent the development of the productive forces, spend them in sumptuary constructions (pyramids, catedrals) or destroye them in blood baths (World War II).
The self-consumption of psychiatric drugs falls into the category of voluntary self-destruction of a relatively privileged population, which no longer has the means to develop its humanity as society is saturated with production and consumption. These people no longer find their place in society: like Calhoun’s mice, all the useful, useless and even harmful social functions are already occupied, so that the only solution left is self-destruction and self-limitation.
Calhoun, J. B. (1973). Death squared: the explosive growth and demise of a mouse population.
Doctors and journalists can hardly go beyond the polite criticism of psychiatry, because their caste. They can not say, for example, that their colleagues should be arrested, even if basically the solution to all this mess is in physical action, and not in intellectual discussion.
On the other hand, I do not really see how psychiatry could be abolished without abolishing the current state.
As Richard D. Lewis puts it, psychiatry is an instrument of state repression for social regulation, in families, at school and at work. It is also a very lucrative business. The state will not let go of its instrument of repression before being destroyed, nor offend the interests it serves.
Lenin can do this, lol. 😀
More seriously, I am not an academic authority, but I know that I do not have under my command armed men who could close the psychiatric hospitals, and make the necessary arrests.
In the meantime, I’m doing propaganda, and I help my comrades get out of the psychiatric hospital by giving them the necessary documents and advice. As such, RW’s articles are extremely useful, but not only.
“Mad In America” is this organisation.
The time has not yet come to overthrow psychiatry by revolutionary means.
Meanwhile, the fight is largely intellectual, where antipsychiatry must prove again and again that the psychiatry is bad. When researchers criticize the canons of psychiatry, this is an opportunity to show the contradictions inside psychiatry, to encourage integrity and to denounce fraud, even if we can criticize moderation and conformity of the majority of critical researchers.
It is known that MIA brings together both antipsychiatry and critical psychiatry: this has been discussed before. For the moment, this cohabitation does not bother me, because the critical psychiatry brings interesting scientific contributions to the antipsychiatric fight. Moreover, there is no doubt that many survivors of psychiatry come to radical antipsychiatry via critical psychiatry’s autors.
In any case, science gives intellectual weapons to defend oneself in the present, and prepares future battles on a sound rational basis.
Science is our weapon. We must systematically promote scientific research among the general public in the form of accessible, fully sourced and verifiable articles, leaflets, videos and graphics.
We must denounce relentlessly journalists, psychiatrists and experts who promote toxic and dangerous methods, by interest and not based on science.
For lack of means, we will always have the media bottom, but we can nonetheless form an active minority that can reverse the situation when the time is right.
Make graphics! A picture is worth a thousand words.
This whole story reminds me of Trotsky’s, when he was expelled from the USSR after trying in vain to straighten the Soviet Union.
Perhaps they want to return to the “non-biological psychiatry” of the 19th century: to lock people up because they are “immoral”, not because they are “sick”. Big difference.
The school is a completely toxic institution, like the psychiatric hospital. The defense of this institution is repugnant to me, and I am seriously revolted at the idea that someone can look, here on MIA, for a sweet way to bring the children back to this slaughterhouse.
As in psychiatry, the author of the article looks for ways to lock up children in school without even asking if it is an honorable goal. It is as perverse as to wonder how to lock up a child in a psychiatric hospital, without wondering if this institution could not definitively annihilate this child, and make him a disabled person for life.
I claim that the “gentle and respectful” social pressure exerted by parents and teachers on children must instead be exercised in the most brutal and unmerciful
way by children who have become adults on their former oppressors, by revolutionary and violent means.
There is no question of tolerating the benevolence of the sadists, officials and guardians, slaves of the state, all are there to make children submissive beings, slaves and executioners and reproduce a foul society.
Let’s be clear: the violence of children is legitimate, and children have to ripen in order to make their internal violence as sharp as steel, and organized like an army. And all those weak oppressors who believed they could exercising power over eternal children must be crushed by grown-up children who will always remember past oppression.
We do not forget anything!
This article’s hypocrisy is repulsive! “Support Jack”! He is on the right side of the handle, the educator!
What I would say to this child is: swallow the snake, Jack. One day, they will pay for this garbage. Everything will be paid.
But Ben Furman is a psychiatrist! No wonder he thinks like that! Psychiatrists are worse than teachers. It is the quintessence of the bureaucratic spirit that interferes in the private life of the people, who wants to direct the life of the children with his parish moralism.
Do not touch the children, Mr. Furman. All children, once adults, will not necessarily have to thank you for your benevolence.
In this article, the economic determinants of this dispute are not discussed.
Psychiatrists make money with antidepressants, psychologists, no.
A patient may turn to a psychiatrist to cure his “depression”, or to a psychologist. But he can also turn to both, especially if the psychiatrist redirects his patient to a psychologist after prescribing antidepressants, or if a psychologist redirects his patient to a psychiatrist in psychotherapy. Which is common, and even usual.
Thus, although rivals, psychiatrists and psychologists have an economic interest to collaborate, since they have the same clientele.
However there are also territorial wars. The excessive promotion of antidepressants by psychiatrists can lead to a loss of clientele for psychologists. This is why psychologists occasionally remember that antidepressants are bad for your health, which puts psychiatrists in a rage.
However, the collaboration between psychiatrists and psychologists is far too fruitful: one profession deals with drugs, the other with psychotherapy. That is why some psychologists are not favorable to the war, they think that antidepressants can be criticized “a little but not too much”, since psychologists and psychiatrists have fundamentally the same interests.
This is what really explains this little controversy, and the eagerness of some psychologists to sign peace with the psychiatrists, with whom they share their clientele.
There is no evidence that aripiprazole, topiramate, d-fenfluramine, quetiapine and metformin improve health. Indeed, these drugs have not been compared in double-blind vs placebo or non-medication for naïve subjects.
In contrast, all the cited studies about aripiprazole, topiramate, d-fenfluramine, quetiapine and metformin compared these drugs with other psychiatric treatments (see sources in the meta-analysis). The only thing this meta-analysis found is that these 5 drugs have less harmful effects than other psychiatrics treatments, if we take into account only a single class of biological variables, related to metabolism.
This is an extremely weak conclusion, almost without interest.
It seems that there is only one cited meta-analysis related to naïve patients (same autors, Vancampfort, 2013). Here is what this meta-analysis found:
drug-naïve patients: 16.6%
multi-episode patients: 50% (significant)
drug-naïve patients: 31.6%
multi-episodes patients: 37.3% (not significant)
drug-naïve patients: 23.3%
multi-episodes patients: 39.0% (significant)
abnormally low HDL cholesterol levels
drug-naïve patients: 24.2%
multi-episodes patients: 41.7% (significant)
drug-naïve patients: 10.0%
multi-episodes patients: 34.2% (significant)
drug-naïve patients: 6.4%
multi-episodes patients: 9.5% (non-significant)
Thus, patients who are most exposed to the psychiatric drugs (multi-episodes patients) have a worse health than those who are not exposed to the drug (drug-naïve patients), several conditions being equal (which, I don’t know).
It is dishonest to say that aripiprazole, topiramate, d-fenfluramine, quetiapine and metformin, have a beneficial effect on health, since these drugs have been tested on people severely intoxicated by neuroleptics. In the best case, the only thing we can conclude is that these drugs are less toxic compared to other psychiatric treatments, according to a single class of biological variables, relative to the metabolism. None of the cited studies prove that these drugs improve health compared to the total absence of psychiatric treatment. The naive-patient meta-analysis suggests the opposite.
Vancampfort, D., Wampers, M., Mitchell, A. J., Correll, C. U., De Herdt, A., Probst, M., & De Hert, M. (2013). A meta‐analysis of cardio‐metabolic abnormalities in drug naïve, first‐episode and multi‐episode patients with schizophrenia versus general population controls. World Psychiatry, 12(3), 240-250. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wps.20069 (Open Access)
This regular review of research is a good medicine. 🙂
Puras and Gooding completely ignore the social function and economic interests of psychiatry, making their legalistic program utopian.
The social function of psychiatry is to relieve the dysfunctional and disintegrative institutions of their disruptive elements, to punish individuals for the deficiency of institutions. For example, a dysfunctional family punishes the weaker member through psychiatry, the school punishes a student who argues with his neighbor, accusing him of ADHD.
The more dysfunctional the institutions are, the wider the client base of psychiatry is. As the historical statistics of psychiatry illustrate, when a society is less institutionalized and more community-based, the prevalence of mental illness is extremely low: >0.5% (0,34% in the US’ 1880 Census). It is only in contemporary civilized society that we find a ridiculously high prevalence of 20%, always increasing (31% among College Students, according to WHO).
Moreover, psychiatry has its own economic interests, which is ahead of its social function. Legal drug trafficking brings in bilions, hundreds of millions are willing to consume them voluntarily because of their addiction. But the constraint makes it possible to artificially increase the number of customers, and thus to earn more money; and the physical and mental disability generated by polydrug abuse and harsh treatment makes the clients permanent.
Thus, if, in the long term, anxiolitics increase anxiety, antidepressants increase depression and neuroleptics increase psychosis, it is in line with the economic interests of psychiatry, and if the research irrefutably demonstrates this state of affairs, in front of the public, they must deny it.
In 1880, the United States government launched a large-scale survey, with extraordinary budget, in which nearly 80,000 of the 100,000 doctors that count America participated in the census of mentally ill people across the country, including outside of institutions. (Census Office, 1888, pp. IX and X).
The government found a prevalence of 0.18% of cases of madness, 0.34% among those over 20, 0.01% among those under 20 (Census Office, 1888, XXIX).
So if “17 million American children struggle with some form of psychiatric illness”, this makes us a prevalence of ~ 20%, for 83 million people under 20 years.
In other words, the prevalence of mental illness among children would have increased by 200,000% in 140 years, a rather remarkable increase.
Since psychiatrists do not study historical statistics across the 19 and 20 centuries, they do not realize how grotesque their pretensions are.
Census Office (1888). Defective, dependant and delinquent classes of the population of United States, as returned at the thenth census (June 1, 1880). Washington, Government Printing Office. https://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1880a_v21-02.pdf
There is an ocean between suicidal ideation and actual suicide. Since the psychiatric hospital increases the risk of suicide, Facebook has certainly contributed to many suicides by denouncing people to the police.
Facebook is a repugnant spy in the service of the American state and political censorship. The New York Times is no better: it is a lackey who peddles all the gossip of the state and congratulates Facebook for its policy of surveillance and censorship.