Daniel and Richard If I am honest and self reflexive, which is important to me, part of my frustration came through regarding discussions in general. Of course movements need to put efforts in regarding language. Of course new ideas and descriptions are born. I really think ‘illification’ is a perfect easily understood non-scientific description. I also have had intimate painful experience of a loved one suffering deeply and permanently due to this toxic system and perhaps or most defiantly that leaves me with my own skewed lens. But I am also privy to loads of ‘groups’ and boards where people discuss and although I am certain that the seeds of change are being planted, as I can almost smell them. I also would love a way of uniting these conversations into practical change. It is my personal need for less talk and more do that filtered out into my comment; and yet the ‘do’ feels so upstream against the tidal waves of pharmaceutical corruption and greed that that frustration fills me along with so many others, with a deep sense of sadness. On a positive note I am delighted Daniel you found my phrase ‘catchy’. That said, I think your comment Richard is really valid and it demonstrates to me how easy it is to fall into the pit of terminology that is so commonplace as to appear acceptable. They are as you say dangerous mind altering drugs prescribed in the main to the vulnerable, albeit prescribed with the best of intentions. I am sure that the doctors prescribing them are also in many ways victims of the discourse of their professions.